Federal Register Vol. 83, No.121,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 121 (June 22, 2018)

Page Range28977-29434
FR Document

83_FR_121
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 29144 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
83 FR 29431 - Ocean Policy To Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United StatesPDF
83 FR 29113 - Proposed Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal, Endangered Species Act ClaimsPDF
83 FR 29136 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 29088 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 29121 - Medicare & Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), June 20, 2018PDF
83 FR 29038 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Definitions (NFS Case 2018-N017)PDF
83 FR 29115 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 29116 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 29116 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 29131 - Crude Helium Auction and Sale for Fiscal Year 2019 DeliveryPDF
83 FR 29114 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 29101 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Hazard Simplification WFO-Partner Focus GroupsPDF
83 FR 29100 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Mammal Protection Act Annual Supplemental Data ReportPDF
83 FR 29131 - Notice of Policy Implementing the 2016 Amendments to STCW in Support of the Polar CodePDF
83 FR 29039 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Reference to the Supplemental Rights in Data Special Works Policy and Associated Clause (NFS Case 2018-N016)PDF
83 FR 29040 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Reference to the Shared Savings Policy and Associated Clause (NFS Case 2018-N008)PDF
83 FR 29137 - Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review BoardPDF
83 FR 29023 - Acetochlor; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 29014 - Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether; Tolerance ExemptionPDF
83 FR 29017 - Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 29088 - Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29033 - Benzovindiflupyr; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 29028 - Thiencarbazone-methyl; Pesticide TolerancePDF
83 FR 29085 - Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Health Department, Withdrawal of Section 112(l) Delegation Authority for the Chemical Accident Prevention RegulationsPDF
83 FR 29099 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 29094 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
83 FR 29092 - Certain Tapered Roller Bearings From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 29127 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Methods of Modulating Erythropoiesis With Arginine Vasopressin Receptor 1B MoleculesPDF
83 FR 29007 - Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NYPDF
83 FR 29081 - Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VAPDF
83 FR 29143 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29137 - Proposed Information Collection RequestPDF
83 FR 29118 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Application by The Compliance Team for Continued CMS Approval of Its Rural Health Clinic Accreditation ProgramPDF
83 FR 29120 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, Inc. (AAAASF) for Continued Approval of its Ambulatory Surgical Center Accreditation ProgramPDF
83 FR 28996 - Alabama Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation PlanPDF
83 FR 29011 - Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Detonation, Gulf of Mexico,Pensacola, FLPDF
83 FR 29134 - Notice of Intent To Amend a Portion of the Arizona Strip Field Office Resource Management Plan Related to the Kanab Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern, ArizonaPDF
83 FR 29130 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0010PDF
83 FR 29048 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Water-Source Heat PumpsPDF
83 FR 29096 - Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
83 FR 29003 - Safety Zone; Lavaca Bay, Point Comfort, TXPDF
83 FR 29104 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29140 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Attestation for Employers Seeking To Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 543 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017PDF
83 FR 29139 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Fair Labor Standards Act Special Employment ProvisionsPDF
83 FR 29088 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
83 FR 29098 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
83 FR 29005 - Safety Zone: San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CAPDF
83 FR 29122 - Decisions Related to the Development of a Clearinghouse of Evidence-Based Practices in Accordance With the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018PDF
83 FR 29126 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 29128 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29125 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29127 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
83 FR 29126 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29126 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29128 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29104 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 29107 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 29136 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Unither Manufacturing LLCPDF
83 FR 29001 - Disposition of PropertyPDF
83 FR 28994 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Next Generation Sequencing Based Tumor Profiling TestPDF
83 FR 29124 - Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 29144 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Improvements to Main Control Room Post-Accident Radiological ConsequencesPDF
83 FR 29117 - Information Collection; Violations of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements With the United StatesPDF
83 FR 29116 - Information Collection; Use of Products and Services of Kaspersky LabPDF
83 FR 29041 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Mutton Snapper and Gag Management MeasuresPDF
83 FR 29044 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions; Regulatory Amendment 4PDF
83 FR 29154 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Fee or Roster Personnel DesignationPDF
83 FR 29155 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application by Insured Terminally Ill Person for Accelerated BenefitPDF
83 FR 29140 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardPDF
83 FR 29002 - Recurring Safety Zone; Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration, Wellsburg, WVPDF
83 FR 29002 - Recurring Safety Zone; Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, Monongahela, PAPDF
83 FR 29005 - Recurring Safety Zone; EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PAPDF
83 FR 28983 - Children's Products, Children's Toys, and Child Care Articles: Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM F963 Elements, and Phthalates for Engineered Wood ProductsPDF
83 FR 29129 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29056 - Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of “Public Communication”PDF
83 FR 29129 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29102 - Recall Effectiveness: Announcement of Request for Information Regarding the Use of Direct Notice and Targeted Notices During RecallsPDF
83 FR 29144 - Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (North Trend Expansion Project); Notice of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ReconstitutionPDF
83 FR 29001 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cape Fear River, North Carolina, Wilmington, NCPDF
83 FR 29153 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Procedures To Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies Under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions ActPDF
83 FR 29152 - Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working GroupPDF
83 FR 29146 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 29148 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 1101A, Terms of Option ContractsPDF
83 FR 29150 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a Floor to the Calculation of the Fails Charges and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 29146 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Liquidity Risk ManagementPDF
83 FR 29065 - Proposed Establishment and Modification of Area Navigation Routes, Atlantic Coast Route Project; Northeastern United StatesPDF
83 FR 28978 - Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways in the Vicinity of Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MIPDF
83 FR 28981 - Modification to Restricted Area R-5601F and Establishment of Restricted Area R-5601J; Fort Sill, OKPDF
83 FR 28977 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kenansville, NCPDF
83 FR 28980 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Altoona, PAPDF
83 FR 29115 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 29066 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Bloomsburg, PAPDF
83 FR 29064 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Chebeague Island, MEPDF
83 FR 29111 - Boott Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study RequestsPDF
83 FR 29108 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 29108 - Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC; Notice of Settlement Agreement, Soliciting Comments, and Modification of Procedural SchedulePDF
83 FR 29110 - Woodland Pulp, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 29115 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate ReceivershipPDF
83 FR 28992 - Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor ProgramPDF
83 FR 29013 - Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Notification of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 29067 - TWIC-Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective DatePDF
83 FR 29059 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 29061 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 29056 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault AviationPDF
83 FR 29312 - SES Positions That Were Career Reserved During CY 2017PDF
83 FR 29135 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Normally Pressured Lance (NPL) Natural Gas Development ProjectPDF
83 FR 29212 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of MexicoPDF
83 FR 29158 - Optional Internet Availability of Investment Company Shareholder ReportsPDF

Issue

83 121 Friday, June 22, 2018 Contents AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29104 2018-13426 Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 29104-29107 2018-13412 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application by the Compliance Team for Continued CMS Approval of its Rural Health Clinic Accreditation Program, 29118-29120 2018-13436 Application from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, Inc. for Continued Approval of its Ambulatory Surgical Center Accreditation Program, 29120-29121 2018-13435 Meetings: Medicare and Medicaid Programs, and Other Program Initiatives, and Priorities; Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education, 29121-29122 2018-13503 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Requests for Comments: Clearinghouse of Evidence-Based Practices in Accordance with the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018, 29122-29124 2018-13420 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29088 2018-13527 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Cape Fear River, NC, Wilmington, NC, 29001-29002 2018-13386 Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones: Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY, 29007-29011 2018-13441 Safety Zones: EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PA, 29005 2018-13393 Lavaca Bay, Point Comfort, TX, 29003-29005 2018-13428 Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, Monongahela, PA, 29002 2018-13394 San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA, 29005-29007 2018-13421 Unexploded Ordnance Detonation, Gulf of Mexico, Pensacola, FL, 29011-29013 2018-13433 Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration, Wellsburg, WV, 29002-29003 2018-13395 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA, 29081-29085 2018-13439 Transportation Worker Identification Credential—Reader Requirements, 29067-29081 2018-13345 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29130 2018-13431 Policy Letters: 2016 Amendments to Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping in Support of the Polar Code, 29131 2018-13465 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 29153-29154 2018-13384 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Children's Products, Children's Toys, and Child Care Articles: Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM F963 Elements, and Phthalates for Engineered Wood Products, 28983-28992 2018-13392 NOTICES Requests for Information: Recall Effectiveness: Regarding the Use of Direct Notice and Targeted Notices During Recalls, 29102-29103 2018-13388 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of Products and Services of Kaspersky Lab, 29116-29117 2018-13402 Violations of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements with the United States, 29117-29118 2018-13403 Charter Renewals: Board of Actuaries, 29107-29108 2018-13411
Disability Disability Employment Policy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29137-29139 2018-13437 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Unither Manufacturing LLC, 29136-29137 2018-13410 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Water-Source Heat Pumps, 29048-29056 2018-13430
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Acetochlor, 29023-29028 2018-13459 Benzovindiflupyr, 29033-29038 2018-13454 Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether, 29014-29017 2018-13457 Thiencarbazone-methyl, 29028-29033 2018-13453 Tolfenpyrad, 29017-29023 2018-13456 Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Availability of Training Materials, 29013-29014 2018-13353 PROPOSED RULES Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Health Department, Withdrawal of Section 112(l) Delegation Authority for the Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations, 29085-29087 2018-13452 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29114 2018-13468 Endangered Species Act Claims: Proposed Stipulated Order of Partial Dismissal, 29113-29114 2018-13572 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 29115 2018-13372 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways: Vicinity of Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, 28978-28980 2018-13376 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Altoona, PA, 28980-28981 2018-13373 Kenansville, NC, 28977-28978 2018-13374 Restricted Areas: R-5601F, R-5601J; Fort Sill, OK, 28981-28983 2018-13375 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 29059-29064 2018-13334 2018-13335 Dassault Aviation, 29056-29059 2018-13333 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Bloomsburg, PA, 29066-29067 2018-13371 Establishment and Modification of Area Navigation Routes: Atlantic Coast Route Project; Northeastern United States, 29065-29066 2018-13377 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Chebeague Island, ME, 29064-29065 2018-13370 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: Blue Ridge Savings Bank, Inc., 29115 2018-13361 Federal Election Federal Election Commission PROPOSED RULES Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of Public Communication, 29056 2018-13390 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 29108 2018-13367 Hydroelectric Applications: Boott Hydropower, LLC, 29111-29113 2018-13368 Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC, 29108-29109 2018-13366 Woodland Pulp, LLC, 29110-29111 2018-13364 2018-13365 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control Notices: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 29116 2018-13473 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 29115-29116 2018-13474 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 29116 2018-13472 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Next Generation Sequencing Based Tumor Profiling Test, 28994-28996 2018-13406 NOTICES Meetings: Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, 29124-29125 2018-13405 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of Products and Services of Kaspersky Lab, 29116-29117 2018-13402 Violations of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements with the United States, 29117-29118 2018-13403 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee, 29088 2018-13455 Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the People's Republic of China, 29096-29098 2018-13429 Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China, 29088-29092 2018-13423 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 29098-29099 2018-13422 Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea, 29092-29094 2018-13447 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan, 29099-29100 2018-13449 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea, 29094-29096 2018-13448 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29136 2018-13528 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, 29137 2018-13460 Labor Department Labor Department See

Disability Employment Policy Office

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Attestation for Employers Seeking to Employ H-2B Nonimmigrant Workers Under Section 543 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, 29140 2018-13425 Fair Labor Standards Act Special Employment Provisions, 29139 2018-13424
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Crude Helium Auction and Sale for Fiscal Year 2019 Delivery, 29131-29134 2018-13469 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Intent to Amend a Portion of the Arizona Strip Field Office Resource Management Plan Related to the Kanab Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Arizona, 29134-29135 2018-13432 Normally Pressured Lance (NPL) Natural Gas Development Project, 29135-29136 2018-13273 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modifications: Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standard, 29140-29143 2018-13396 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Definitions, 29038-29039 2018-13475 Removal of Reference to the Supplemental Rights in Data Special Works Policy and Associated Clause, 29039-29040 2018-13464 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Removal of Reference to the Shared Savings Policy and Associated Clause, 29040-29041 2018-13463 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Use of Products and Services of Kaspersky Lab, 29116-29117 2018-13402 Violations of Arms Control Treaties or Agreements with the United States, 29117-29118 2018-13403 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses; Proposed Approvals: Methods of Modulating Erythropoiesis with Arginine Vasopressin Receptor 1B Molecules, 29127 2018-13443 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 29127-29128 2018-13416 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 29129-29130 2018-13389 2018-13391 National Eye Institute, 29128 2018-13413 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 29126 2018-13414 2018-13415 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 29125-29126, 29128-29129 2018-13417 2018-13418 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 29126-29127 2018-13419 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Mutton Snapper and Gag Management Measures, 29041-29044 2018-13401 Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions; Regulatory Amendment 4, 29044-29047 2018-13400 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 29212-29310 2018-12906 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Hazard Simplification WFO-Partner Focus Groups, 29101-29102 2018-13467 Marine Mammal Protection Act Annual Supplemental Data Report, 29100-29101 2018-13466 Navy Navy Department RULES Disposition of Property, 29001 2018-13409 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Reconstitution: Crow Butte Resources, Inc., 29144 2018-13387 Exemptions and Combined Licenses; Amendments: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Improvements to Main Control Room Post-Accident Radiological Consequences, 29144-29145 2018-13404 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 29144 C1--2018--12506 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Senior Executive Service Positions that were Career Reserved During CY 2017, 29312-29427 2018-13328 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Safety: Meeting of the Voluntary Information-Sharing System Working Group, 29152-29153 2018-13383 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 29146 2018-13382 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the U.S.; Implementation of Ocean Policy To Advance (EO 13840), 29429-29434 2018-13640 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Optional Internet Availability of Investment Company Shareholder Reports, 29158-29209 2018-12423 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 29150-29152 2018-13379 LCH SA, 29146-29148 2018-13378 Nasdaq PHLX LLC, 29148-29150 2018-13380 Social Social Security Administration RULES Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor Program, 28992-28994 2018-13359 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Alabama Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan, 28996-29001 2018-13434 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application by Insured Terminally Ill Person for Accelerated Benefit, 29155 2018-13397 Application for Fee or Roster Personnel Designation, 29154-29155 2018-13398 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29143-29144 2018-13438 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 29158-29209 2018-12423 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 29212-29310 2018-12906 Part IV Personnel Management Office, 29312-29427 2018-13328 Part V Presidential Documents, 29429-29434 2018-13640 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.

83 121 Friday, June 22, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1238; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-25] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kenansville, NC AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace at Duplin County Airport, Kenansville, NC, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Kenan non-directional radio beacon (NDB), and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Duplin County Airport, Kenansville, NC, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 9822, March 8, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2016-1238 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile (from a 6.4-mile) at Duplin County Airport, Kenansville, NC, due to the decommissioning of the Kenan NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach, and adjustment of the geographic coordinates. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Duplin County Airport, Kenansville, NC, due to the decommissioning of the Kenan NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are amended to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO NC E5 Kenansville, NC [Amended] Duplin County Airport, NC (Lat. 35°00′00″ N, long. 77°58′54″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Duplin County Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 14, 2018. Ken Brissenden, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-13374 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0724; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways in the Vicinity of Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510 in the vicinity of Lansing, MI, and removes airway V-410 in the vicinity of Pontiac, MI. These modifications are required due to the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Pontiac, MI, VORTAC navigation aids, which provide navigation guidance for portions of the above routes.

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0724 (82 FR 34272; July 24, 2017). The NPRM proposed to amend VOR Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510, and to remove V-410, due to the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, VORTACs. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-2, V-26, V-84, V-218, and V-510; and removing V-410, due to the planned decommissioning of the Lansing, MI, and Pontiac, MI, VORTACs. The route changes are described below.

V-2: V-2 extends between the Seattle, WA, VORTAC and the Gardner, MA, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the intersection of the Nodine, MN, 122° and Waukon, IA, 053° radials (WEBYE fix) and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-26: V-26 extends between the Blue Mesa, CO, VOR/DME and the Dryer, OH, VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway segment between the White Cloud, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-84: V-84 extends between the Northbrook, IL, VOR/DME and the Flint, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the Syracuse, NY, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Pullman, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-218: V-218 extends between the Grand Rapids, MN, VOR/DME and the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC. The airway segments between the Waukon, IA, VORTAC and the Rockford, IL, VOR/DME; and between the Keeler, MI, VOR/DME and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC are removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

V-410: V-410 extends between the Pontiac, MI, VORTAC and the London, ON, Canada VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within Canada. The airway is removed in its entirety.

V-510: V-510 extends between the Dickinson, ND, VORTAC and the Dells, WI, VORTAC; between the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC; and between the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME and the Rochester, NY, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC and the Lansing, MI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.

All radials in the route descriptions are stated relative to True north. Additionally, minor punctuation changes were made for clarity.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying five VOR Federal airways and removing one Federal airway qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; to INT Nodine 122° and Waukon, IA, 053° radials. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.

V-26 [Amended]

From Blue Mesa, CO; Montrose, CO; 13 miles 112 MSL, 131 MSL, Grand Junction, CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy Mountain, WY; 14 miles, 37 miles 75 MSL, 84 miles 90 MSL, Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; Pierre, SD; Huron, SD; Redwood Falls, MN; Farmington, MN; Eau Claire, WI; Waussau, WI; Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and White Cloud, MI, 302° radials; to White Cloud.

V-84 [Amended]

From Northbrook, IL; to Pullman, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Geneseo, NY; INT Geneseo 091° and Syracuse, NY, 240° radials; to Syracuse.

V-218 [Amended]

From International Falls, MN; Grand Rapids, MN; Gopher, MN; to Waukon, IA.

V-410 [Removed] V-510 [Amended]

From Dickinson, ND; INT Dickinson 078° and Bismarck, ND, 290° radials; 28 miles 38 MSL, Bismarck; INT Bismarck 067° and Jamestown, ND, 279° radials; 14 miles, 65 miles 34 MSL, Jamestown; Fargo, ND; INT Fargo 110° and Alexandria, MN, 321° radials; Alexandria; INT Alexandria 110° and Gopher, MN, 321° radials; Gopher; INT Gopher 109° and Nodine, MN, 328° radials; Nodine; to Dells, WI. From Buffalo, NY; INT Buffalo 045° and Rochester, NY, 273° radials; to Rochester.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2018. Scott J. Gardner, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-13376 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0129; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-4] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Altoona, PA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends amend Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA. This action accommodates airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of Altoona VHF omnidirectional range navigation system (VOR) and cancellation of the VOR approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace System.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 11446, March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0129 to amend Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 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 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface due to the decommissioning of the Altoona VOR and cancelation of associated approaches at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA.

The Class E surface area airspace is amended to within a 4.7-mile (from a 4-mile) radius of the airport, with a segment 1.0-mile each side of the 026° bearing from the airport to 8.7 miles northeast. The Altoona VOR segment is removed.

The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended to within an 11.2-mile (from a 6.5-mile) radius of the airport. These changes enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA PA E2 Altoona, PA [Amended] Altoona-Blair County Airport, PA (Lat. 40°17′47″ N, long. 78°19′12″ W)

Within a 4.7-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport, and within 1.0 mile each side of the 026° bearing from the airport to 8.7 miles northeast of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Altoona, PA [Amended] Altoona-Blair County Airport, PA (Lat. 40°17′47″ N, long. 78°19′12″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.2-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 14, 2018. Ken Brissenden, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-13373 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0470; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-2] RIN 2120-AA66 Modification to Restricted Area R-5601F and Establishment of Restricted Area R-5601J; Fort Sill, OK AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This action amends the restricted areas at Fort Sill, OK, to subdivide R-5601F into two subareas, R-5601F and R-5601J, make a minor correction to one boundary point in R-5601G, and to update and standardize the using agency information for each restricted area in the Fort Sill restricted area complex. The FAA is taking this action to allow for more efficient use of the airspace during periods when military activities only require the eastern portions of the restricted area complex. The airspace modifications are fully contained within the existing lateral and vertical boundaries of the Fort Sill, OK, restricted airspace. The using agency information update to each of the restricted areas in the Fort Sill complex is editorial only.

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends existing restricted area R-5601F by subdividing it into R-5601F and R-5601J, and updates the using agency information for each of the restricted areas at Fort Sill, OK.

History

R-5601F is an irregularly shaped restricted area in the Fort Sill, OK, restricted area complex used to contain hazardous activities. It connects the Military Operations Areas located to the north with the R-5601 gunnery ranges located to the south and stretches the entire length of the Fort Sill restricted area complex laterally from west to east, from 500 feet above ground level (AGL) to Flight Level 400 in altitude. The United States (U.S.) Army normally trains in the eastern restricted areas, R-5601A, R-5601B, and R-5601F, while the U.S. Air Force normally trains in the western areas, R-5601C, R-5601D, R-5601E, R-5601F, and R-5601G. When the using agency only requires the eastern areas to support its hazardous training activities, it results in the R-5601F restricted area being activated across the entire northern boundary of the restricted areas being activated, and creates a 14-mile extension of restricted area airspace that is not needed for the training activities being conducted.

The activation of R-5601F, and the unintended consequences of the 14-mile extension of restricted area airspace extending westward beyond the eastern Fort Sill restricted areas, primarily impacts the high altitude commercial air carriers inbound to the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area. Routing aircraft to overfly the R-5601F restricted area results in descent delays that take aircraft off their optimized descent profiles, and vectoring aircraft to circumnavigate the R-5601F restricted area laterally to the west adds miles and flight time to each aircraft. Additionally, these mitigations to overcome the unneeded extension of the R-5601F restricted area when only the eastern Fort Sill restricted areas are required also increases air traffic complexity and controller workload.

In December 2017, the FAA supported a U.S. Army laser air defense exercise conducted at Fort Sill, OK, using existing permanent restricted areas and two temporary restricted areas established overhead the Fort Sill restricted area complex. As part of a lessons learned review of the exercise, the FAA determined that subdividing the existing R-5601F restricted area laterally into two restricted areas, activated independently, would lessen aeronautical impacts to air traffic operating in the central United States.

Further, subdividing the existing R-5601F laterally into two separate restricted areas enhances the efficient use of the National Airspace System by providing for activation of the minimum amount of restricted area airspace needed for hazardous military training activities and releases unneeded restricted areas for access by other airspace users.

Lastly, while staffing this airspace action to subdivide R-5601F laterally, the FAA also determined that one geographic point in the R-5601G boundary information needed to be adjusted and the using agency information needed to be updated in all of the restricted areas in the R-5601 complex. The minor R-5601G boundary point change was deemed necessary to ensure the accuracy of the shared boundaries with the two new subdivided restricted areas and the using agency editorial updates was necessary for clarity and standardization in all of the restricted areas in the R-5601 complex.

The Rule

This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by subdividing restricted area R-5601F in the Fort Sill, OK, restricted area complex into two subareas, R-5601F (amended) and R-5601J (new), divided laterally by a shared boundary extending from lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′44″ W to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°35′40″ W. The subarea portion of the current R-5601F established west of the shared boundary will continue to be designated R-5601F, and the subarea portion established east of the shared boundary will be designated R-5601J. This action does not alter the existing lateral or vertical boundaries of the restricted area airspace or the operations currently conducted in that airspace. The subdivision of the current R-5601F restricted area minimizes impacts to high altitude commercial air carriers inbound to the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area unnecessarily when only the eastern R-5601 complex restricted areas are required for training by the using agency at Fort Sill, OK.

This action also makes a minor change to one geographic point in the boundaries information listed in the R-5601G description due to improved digital charting capabilities. This change ensures the accuracy of the shared boundaries between restricted areas R-5601F and R-5601J with R-5601G, and that all three restricted areas meet at the same shared boundary point.

Additionally, this action makes editorial changes to the using agency information listed in each of the Fort Sill restricted area descriptions for clarity and standardization. The using agency is unchanged, but simply amended in the descriptions to reflect the military unit responsible for ensuring the restricted areas are used for their designated purpose, scheduling the restricted areas, and coordinating the restricted area airspace use with the controlling agency. The Fort Sill using agency concurs with this editorial update.

These modifications do not change the current lateral boundaries, designated altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the Fort Sill restricted area complex; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action of amending the internal subdivision of restricted area R-5601F within the Fort Sill, OK, complex qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5.d, “Modification of the technical description of special use airspace (SUA) that does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, or times of designation of the airspace (such as changes in designation of the controlling or using agency, or correction of typographical errors).” This airspace action is an administrative change to the internal subdivision of an existing restricted area within the Fort Sill, OK, restricted area complex. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, time of designation, or use of the airspace. Therefore, this airspace action is not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 73.56 [Amended]
2. § 73.56 is amended as follows: R-5601A Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601B Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601C Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601D Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601E Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601F Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°46′24″ N, long. 98°52′00″ W; thence clockwise via the 49 NM arc of the Wichita Falls VORTAC to lat. 34°46′39″ N, long. 98°50′53″ W; to lat. 34°43′46″ N, long. 98°49′55″ W; thence clockwise via the 46 NM arc of the Wichita Falls VORTAC to lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′44″ W; to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°35′40″ W; to lat. 34°45′00″ N, long. 98°40′31″ W; to lat. 34°42′15″ N, long. 98°50′01″ W; to the point of beginning. Excluding that airspace below 5,500 feet MSL beginning at lat. 34°44′28″ N, long. 98°46′16″ W; thence clockwise via the 46 NM arc of the Wichita Falls VORTAC to lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′44″ W; to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°35′40″ W; to lat. 34°45′00″ N, long. 98°40′31″ W; to lat. 34°43′09″ N, long. 98°46′56″ W; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to FL 400. Times of designation. Sunrise to 2200 local time, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Fort Worth ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601G Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing the boundary geographic point “lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′46″ W” and adding in its place “lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′44″ W.”

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601H Fort Sill, OK [Amended]

By removing “Using agency. U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK,” and adding in its place:

Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

R-5601J Fort Sill, OK [New]

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°45′03″ N, long. 98°29′44″ W; to lat. 34°46′15″ N, long. 98°25′01″ W; to lat. 34°47′00″ N, long. 98°17′46″ W; to lat. 34°46′45″ N, long. 98°17′01″ W; to lat. 34°46′06″ N, long. 98°17′01″ W; to lat. 34°46′06″ N, long. 98°21′01″ W; to lat. 34°43′45″ N, long. 98°21′01″ W; to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°21′21″ W; to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°35′40″ W; to the point of beginning. Excluding that airspace below 5,500 feet MSL beginning at lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°35′40″ W; to lat. 34°44′48″ N, long. 98°30′45″ W; to lat. 34°43′30″ N, long. 98°30′00″ W; to the point of beginning; and that airspace below 3,500 feet MSL within a 1 NM radius of lat. 34°46′46″ N, long. 98°17′46″ W.

Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to FL 400. Times of designation. Sunrise to 2200 local time, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM. Controlling agency. FAA, Fort Worth ARTCC. Using agency. U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2018. Scott J. Gardner, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-13375 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1252 [Docket No. CPSC-2017-0038] Children's Products, Children's Toys, and Child Care Articles: Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM F963 Elements, and Phthalates for Engineered Wood Products AGENCY:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is issuing a final rule determining that certain untreated and unfinished engineered wood products (EWPs), specifically, particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium-density fiberboard, made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste do not contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or specified phthalates that exceed the limits set forth under the CPSC's statutes for children's products, children's toys, and child care articles. Based on these determinations, the specified EWPs would not be required to have third party testing for compliance with the requirements for lead, ASTM F963 elements, or phthalates for children's products, children's toys, and child care articles.

DATES:

The rule is effective on July 23, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Lee, Office of Compliance, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Hwy., Bethesda, MD 20814; 301-504-7844: email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background 1. Third Party Testing and Burden Reduction

Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires that manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation enforced by the CPSC, must certify that the product complies with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For children's products, children's toys, and child care articles, certification must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body (laboratory). Id. Public Law 112-28 (August 12, 2011) directed the CPSC to seek comment on “opportunities to reduce the cost of third party testing requirements consistent with assuring compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation.” Public Law 112-28 also authorized the Commission to issue new or revised third party testing regulations if the Commission determines “that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.” Id. 2063(d)(3)(B).

2. CPSC's Lead Standard

Section 101 of the CPSIA has two requirements associated with lead in children's products. 15 U.S.C. 1278a. First, no accessible part of a children's product may contain more than 100 parts per million (ppm) lead content. Second, paint or other surface coatings on children's products and furniture intended for consumer use may not contain lead in concentrations greater than 90 ppm. Manufacturers of children's products must certify, based on third party testing, that their products comply with all relevant children's product safety rules. Thus, products subject to the lead content or paint/surface coating limits require passing test results from a CPSC-accepted third party laboratory for the manufacturer to issue a children's product certificate (CPC), before the products can be entered into commerce.

To alleviate some of the third party testing burdens associated with lead in the accessible component parts of children's products, the Commission determined that certain materials, including gemstones, precious metals, wood, paper, CMYK process printing inks, textiles, and specified stainless steel, do not exceed the 100 ppm lead content limit under section 101 of the CPSIA. Based on this determination, these materials do not require third party testing for the lead content limits. The determinations regarding lead content for certain materials are set forth in 16 CFR 1500.91.

3. ASTM F963 Elements

Section 106 of the CPSIA provides that the provisions of ASTM International Consumer Safety Specifications for Toy Safety (ASTM F963) shall be considered to be consumer product safety standards issued by the Commission.1 15 U.S.C. 2056b. The Commission has issued a rule that incorporates by reference the relevant provisions of ASTM F963.2 16 CFR part 1250. Thus, children's toys subject to ASTM F963 must be tested by a CPSC-accepted third party laboratory and demonstrate compliance with all applicable CPSC requirements for the manufacturer to issue a CPC before the children's toys can be entered into commerce.3

1 ASTM F963 is a consumer product safety standard, except for section 4.2 and Annex 4, or any provision that restates or incorporates an existing mandatory standard or ban promulgated by the Commission or by statute.

2 The current version of ASTM F963 is ASTM F963-17. The test method for the ASTM F963 elements allows the use of High-Definition X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (HDXRF) for total element screening. See section 8.3.1.4 of ASTM F963-17.

3 A “children's toy” is defined in section 1.3 of ASTM F963-17 as any object designed, manufactured, or marketed as a plaything for children under 14 years of age. However, the term “children's toy” is defined in section 108(e)(1)(B) of the CPSIA as a consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays. Only toys intended for a child 12 years of age or younger are subject to certification requirements.

Section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963 requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of children's toys that can be sucked, mouthed, or ingested 4 must comply with the solubility limits of eight elements listed in Table 1 of the toy standard. The materials and their solubility limits are shown in Table 1. We refer to these eight elements as “ASTM F963 elements.”

4 ASTM F963 contains the following note regarding the scope of the solubility requirement: NOTE 4—For the purposes of this requirement, the following criteria are considered reasonably appropriate for the classification of children's toys or parts likely to be sucked, mouthed or ingested: (1) All toy parts intended to be mouthed or contact food or drink, components of children's toys which are cosmetics, and components of writing instruments categorized as children's toys; (2) Children's toys intended for children less than 6 years of age, that is, all accessible parts and components where there is a probability that those parts and components may come into contact with the mouth.

Table 1—Maximum Soluble Migrated Element in ppm (mg/kg) for Surface Coatings and Substrates Included as Part of a Toy Elements Solubility limit
  • (ppm) 5
  • Antimony (Sb) 60 Arsenic (As) 25 Barium (Ba) 1000 Cadmium (Cd) 75 Chromium (Cr) 60 Lead (Pb) 90 Mercury (Hg) 60 Selenium (Se) 500

    The third party testing burden could be reduced only if all elements listed in section 4.3.5 have concentrations below their solubility limits. Because third party laboratories typically run one test for all of the ASTM F963 elements, no testing burden reduction would be achieved if any one of the elements requires testing.

    5 The method to assess the solubility of a listed element is detailed in section 8.3.2, Method to Dissolve Soluble Matter for Surface Coatings, of ASTM F963. Modeling clays included as part of a toy have different solubility limits for several of the elements.

    To alleviate some of the third party testing burdens associated with the ASTM F963 elements in the accessible component parts of children's toys, the Commission determined that certain unfinished and untreated trunk wood does not contain ASTM F963 elements that would exceed the limits specified in section 106 of the CPSIA. Based on this determination, unfinished and untreated trunk wood would not require third party testing for the ASTM F963 elements. The determinations regarding the ASTM F963 elements limits for certain materials is set forth in 16 CFR 1251.2.

    4. Phthalates

    Section 108(a) of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any “children's toy or child care article” that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP). 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a). The CPSIA required the Commission to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to “study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles.” 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2). The CHAP issued its report in July 2014.6 On October 27, 2017, the Commission published a final rule in the Federal Register, “Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates,” 82 FR 49938, prohibiting children's toys and child care articles containing concentrations greater than 0.1 percent of:

    6http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/169902/CHAP-REPORT-With-Appendices.pdf.

    • di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP); • dibutyl phthalate (DBP); • benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP); • diisononyl phthalate (DINP); • diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP); • di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP); • di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP); or • dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP).

    These restrictions apply to any plasticized component part of a children's toy or child care article or any other component part of a children's toy or child care article that is made of other materials that may contain phthalates. The phthalates prohibitions are set forth in 16 CFR part 1307.

    Tests for phthalate concentration are among the most expensive certification tests to conduct on a product, and each accessible component part subject to section 108 of the CPSIA must be tested.7 Third party testing burden reductions can occur only if each phthalate's concentration is below 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). Because laboratories typically run one test for all of the specified phthalates, no testing burden reduction likely is achieved if any one of the phthalates requires compliance testing.

    7 Test costs for the content of all the specified phthalates have been reported to range from $125 to $350 per component, depending upon where the tests are conducted and any discounts that might apply.

    To alleviate some of the third party testing burdens associated with plastics in the accessible component parts of children's toys and child care articles, the Commission determined that products made with general purpose polystyrene (GPPS), medium-impact polystyrene (MIPS), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), and super high-impact polystyrene (SHIPS) with specified additives do not exceed the phthalates content limits under section 108 of the CPSIA. 82 FR 41163 (August 30, 2017). Based on this determination, materials used in children's toys and child care articles that use these specified plastics and additives would not require third party testing for the phthalates content limits. The plastics determinations are set forth in the Commission's regulations at 16 CFR part 1308.

    5. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On October 13, 2017, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register for the engineered wood determinations. (80 FR 47645). The Commission proposed determinations that untreated and unfinished EWPs (particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium-density fiberboard) made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste, do not contain lead, or any of the specified elements in ASTM F963 in concentrations greater than their specified solubility limits. In addition, with the exception of hardwood plywood that contains PVAc adhesive formulations, the Commission proposed a determination that these specified EWPs do not contain any of the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than 0.1 percent. The comments to the NPR are addressed in section C of this preamble.

    B. Contractor's Research 1. Overview

    CPSC contracted with the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA),8 who authored literature review reports on the content issues related to certain natural materials, plastics, and EWPs. The following reports produced by TERA formed the basis for the proposed EWP determinations: Task 9, Concentrations of Selected Elements in Unfinished Wood and Other Natural Materials; Task 11, Exposure Assessment: Composition, Production, and Use of Phthalates; and Task 14, Final Report for CPSC Task 14, which summarized the available information on the production of the EWPs.

    8 After conducting the contract reports for the CPSC, TERA reorganized as the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati: https://med.uc.edu/eh/centers/rsc.

    1. TERA Task 9 Report

    In the Task 9 Report, TERA conducted a literature search on whether unfinished wood and other natural materials could be determined not to contain any of the ASTM F963 elements in concentrations greater than the ASTM F963 solubility limits.9 The materials researched included unfinished woods (ash, beech, birch, cherry, maple, oak, pine, poplar, and walnut); bamboo; beeswax; undyed and unfinished fibers and textiles (cotton, wool, linen, and silk); and uncoated or coated paper (wood or other cellulosic fiber).

    9http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/TechnicalReports/Toys/TERAReportASTMElements.pdf.

    To assess the presence of the ASTM F963 elements' concentrations in the materials, TERA looked at several factors. The factors reviewed included the presence and concentrations of the elements in the environmental media (e.g., soil, water, air), and in the base materials for the textiles and paper; whether processing has the potential to introduce any of the ASTM F963 elements into the material under study; and the potential for contamination after production, such as through packaging. From this report, the Commission determined that untreated and unfinished woods from tree trunks do not contain any of the elements in ASTM F963 in concentrations greater than their respective solubility limits, and thus, they are not required to be third party tested to ensure compliance with the specified solubility test.10 TERA relied on this information in TERA Task Report 14 to determine that the virgin wood material used in the manufacture of EWPs does not, and will not, contain any of the elements in ASTM F963 in concentrations greater than their respective solubility limits.

    10 80 FR 78651 (Dec. 17, 2015).

    2. TERA Task 11 Report

    In the Task 11 Report, TERA conducted a literature search on the production and use of 11 specified phthalates in consumer products.11 The 11 phthalates researched by TERA were based on the recommendations made in the CHAP report. The 11 phthalates included the eight prohibited phthalates that are subject to the final rule prohibiting children's toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates issued in October 2017 and codified in 16 CFR part 1307. (82 FR 49938). Table 2 lists the phthalates researched by TERA. TERA's research focused on the following factors:

    11http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Other%20Technical%20Reports/TERAReportPhthalates.pdf.

    • The raw materials used in the production of the specified phthalates;

    • The manufacturing processes used worldwide to produce the specified phthalates;

    • Estimated annual production of the specified phthalates;

    • Physical properties of the specified phthalates (e.g., vapor pressure, flashpoint, water solubility, temperature at which chemical breakdown occurs);

    • Applications for phthalates use in materials and consumer and non-consumer products; and

    • Other potential routes by which phthalates can be introduced into an otherwise phthalates-free material (e.g., migration from packaging, recycling, reuse, product breakdown).

    Table 2—Phthalates Researched in the Task 11 Report [* Prohibited phthalates under 16 CFR part 1307] Phthalate CASRN 12 * DEHP: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7. * DBP: dibutyl phthalate 84-74-2. * BBP: benzyl butyl phthalate 85-68-7. * DINP: diisononyl phthalate 28553-12-0, 68515-48-0. DIDP: diisodecyl phthalate 26761-40-0, 68515-49-1. DnOP: di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0. DIOP: diisooctyl phthalate 27554-26-3. * DIBP: diisobutyl phthalate 84-69-5. * DPENP: di-n-pentyl phthalate 131-18-0. * DHEXP: di-n-hexyl phthalate 84-75-3. * DCHP: dicyclohexyl phthalate 84-61-7. TERA found that phthalates are used generally as plasticizers or softeners of certain plastics, primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC), as solvents, and as component parts of inks, paints, adhesives, and sealants.

    12 A CAS Registry Number is assigned to a substance when it enters the CAS REGISTRY database. https://www.cas.org/content/chemical-substances/faqs.

    3. TERA Task 14 Report

    In the Task 14 Report, TERA conducted a literature search on the production of three EWPs: Particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium-density fiberboard.13 TERA first researched authoritative sources, such as reference books and textbooks, along with internet resources, for general information about EWPs, adhesives, raw materials, manufacturing processes, and the potential use of recycled materials. TERA used this information and consulted technical experts to identify key words for searching the literature. These key words were then used to conduct primary literature searches for research studies and publications. In addition, TERA searched for Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for information on raw materials. TERA researched the possibility of the raw materials or finished products in the three EWPs to contain:

    13https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ManufacturedWoodsTERATask14Report.pdf.

    • Lead in concentrations exceeding 100 ppm;

    • Any of the specified elements that are included in the safety standard for children's toys, ASTM F963, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, in concentrations exceeding specified solubility limits; or

    • Any of 10 specified phthalates in concentrations greater than 0.1 percent (1000 ppm), listed in Table 3.14

    14 The TERA research providing the basis for this determination covered the six phthalates subject to the statutory prohibition, as well as the additional phthalates the Commission proposed to prohibit in children's toys and child care articles, with the exception of DIOP. The Commission has issued a final rule prohibiting eight phthalates in children's toys and child care articles on October 17, 2017 (82 FR 49938).

    Table 3—Phthalates Researched in the Task 14 Report [* Prohibited phthalates under 16 CFR part 1307] Phthalate CASRN * DEHP: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7. * DBP: dibutyl phthalate 84-74-2. * BBP: benzyl butyl phthalate 85-68-7. * DINP: diisononyl phthalate 28553-12-0, 68515-48-0. DIDP: diisodecyl phthalate 26761-40-0, 68515-49-1. DnOP: di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0. * DIBP: diisobutyl phthalate 84-69-5. * DPENP: di-n-pentyl phthalate 131-18-0. * DHEXP: di-n-hexyl phthalate 84-75-3. * DCHP: dicyclohexyl phthalate 84-61-7. TERA found that, generally, the processes for manufacturing the three EWPs are similar; wood fibers, chips, layers, or a similar raw wood product are processed with various adhesive formulations (sometimes referred to as binders or resins) along with other additives to create uniform sheets with known characteristics and performance qualities. The main difference among the three types of EWPs relates primarily to the size and morphology (shape and surface characteristics) of the wood material used in their production.

    TERA reviewed the literature to assess whether the specified EWPs might contain lead or one or more of the other elements at levels that exceed the ASTM solubility limits, or any of the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than the specified limits. TERA reported that no studies found lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than their limits in particleboard, hardwood plywood, or medium-density fiberboard, that are unfinished and untreated, and made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste.

    In the Task 14 Report, TERA described an unfinished EWP as one that does not have any surface treatments applied at manufacture, such as factory-applied coatings. An untreated EWP is one that does not have any additional finishes applied at manufacture, such as flame retardants or rot-resistant finishes. TERA described “virgin wood” as wood logs, fibers, chips, or layers that have not been recycled from a previous use. TERA described “pre-consumer wood waste” as wood materials that have been recycled from an industrial process before being made available for consumer use. Examples of this type of waste include trimmings from EWP panel manufacturing, sawdust from cutting logs, or remaining wood pieces from sawing a log into framing lumber.

    The TERA report highlighted the potential for lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates to be present in concentrations greater than those specified through the use of contaminated recycled material in EWPs made from recycled wood waste or EWPs that have post-manufacturing treatments or finishes. Recycled wood waste may be made from reclaimed or post-consumer wood waste. “Post-consumer wood waste” is described as wood waste that is comprised of materials that are recovered from their original use and subsequently used in a new product. Examples of this type of waste include recycled demolition wood, packaging materials, such as pallets and crates, used wood from landscape care (i.e., from urban and highway trees, hedges, and gardens), discarded furniture, and wood waste from industrial, construction, and commercial activities.

    The three types of EWPs reviewed by TERA are discussed below.

    a. Particleboard

    Particleboard is a composite of wood chips, adhesives, and other additives pressed into a board. Adhesive formulations are used to bond wood chips, which are then formed into mats that are layered to create uniform boards in a range of dimensions. Particleboard is used widely in furniture making and other interior (or nonstructural) uses. The constituent parts of particleboard reported by TERA can include (by weight):

    • Wood (60-99+ percent);

    • Adhesive formulation (0-17 percent, with 5-11 percent most common);

    • Phenol-formaldehyde (uncommon but potential for use), urea-formaldehyde, melamine-urea-formaldehyde, polymeric methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate (pMDI);

    • Waxes (0.3-1 percent);

    • Other additives (up to 2 percent); or

    • Scavengers or additional unspecified materials.

    TERA researched the possibility of lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates, in concentrations greater than their specified limits in particleboard. TERA identified little information on measurements of lead and the ASTM F963 elements in particleboard, and found no studies that measured the specified phthalates. TERA identified two references where particleboard made from both untreated and copper chromate arsenic-(CCA) treated wood chips was tested. Arsenic and chromium were undetected in the particleboards made from virgin wood chips. However, the particleboard composed of 25 percent wood chips from reclaimed CCA-treated wood products contained 895 and 832 ppm of arsenic and chromium, respectively, without adversely affecting the mechanical performance of the board. Another study that discussed “recycled particleboard” was identified as wood waste obtained from a wood recycling plant.

    Apart from the studies on particleboard made from wood waste that may contain post-consumer wood waste or post-manufacturing treatments, TERA reported that no studies found lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than the specified limits in untreated and unfinished particleboard.

    b. Hardwood Plywood

    Plywood is a layered board of wood veneers, where the layers have alternating, perpendicular wood grain directions. Less commonly, the board might have a core of other EWPs with wood veneers as the outer layers. Hardwood plywood, addressed in this report, is a type of plywood that is composed of angiosperms (i.e., “hardwoods,” such as oak or maple) and used primarily in furniture and for other interior (nonstructural) purposes, as well as in playground equipment, sports equipment, and musical instruments. The constituent parts of hardwood plywood reported by TERA can include (by weight):

    • Wood (75-99+ percent);

    • Adhesive formulation (0.02-20 percent, with 1 percent to 5 percent most common);

    • Phenol-formaldehyde or phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde (likely for use in structural plywood but potential for application to hardwood plywood), urea-formaldehyde, melamine-formaldehyde, or melamine-urea-formaldehyde, or polyvinyl acetate (PVAc); or

    • Other additives (less than 2 percent).

    TERA researched the possibility of lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than those specified in hardwood plywood. TERA identified only one study that measured lead and the ASTM F963 elements in plywood, and found no studies that measured the specified phthalates. Concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and lead were all less than the solubility limits in “plain” plywood. In addition, because hardwood plywood is made from sheets of wood veneer, it is less likely to contain recycled wood content, unless it incorporates a core of some other EWPs, such as particleboard or medium-density fiberboard.

    Aside from the studies on recycled wood waste that may contain post-consumer wood waste or post-manufacturing treatments in a particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, or other EWP core, TERA reported that no studies found lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than the specified limits in untreated and unfinished hardwood plywood. However, TERA identified research that indicated that polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) can be used as an adhesive system for hardwood plywood, as discussed in section (d) below.

    c. Medium-Density Fiberboard

    Medium-density fiberboard (MDF) is a composite of wood fibers, an adhesive formulation, and other additives pressed into a board. MDF is a product similar to particleboard, differing mostly due to the use of fiber rather than chips. It is used primarily in furniture and for other interior (nonstructural) purposes. The constituent parts of MDF reported by TERA can include (by weight):

    • Wood (73-99+ percent);

    • Adhesive formulation (0-25 percent with most common 5-12 percent);

    • Phenol-formaldehyde (uncommon, but potentially used for moisture resistance), urea-formaldehyde (most commonly identified), methylene-diphenyl-diisocyanate (pMDI), melamine-formaldehyde, or melamine-urea-formaldehyde;

    • Waxes (less than 1 percent); or

    • Other additives (10-30 percent).

    TERA researched the possibility of lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than those specified in MDF. TERA did not identify any references that reported the presence of lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in MDF made with virgin wood.

    Aside from the studies on recycled wood waste that may contain post-consumer wood waste or post-manufacturing treatments, TERA reported that no studies found lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than the specified limits in untreated and unfinished MDF.

    d. TERA's Findings on EWP Constituent Parts

    Because few references were found directly addressing lead, the ASTM F963 elements, and the specified phthalates in EWPs, TERA also researched the constituent parts that could be used to manufacture EWPs, including wood and adhesives.

    Wood

    According to the manufacturing process information provided by TERA, virgin wood and wood residues are the main sources of wood fiber used in North America to manufacture EWPs. Typically, these sources include low-value logs, industrial wood residues, or scraps and trim from furniture and EWP production. For example, hardwood plywood requires the trunks of trees to obtain the thin layers of veneer used to construct a sheet. TERA relied on the Task 9 Report and Commission findings on unfinished and untreated wood (80 FR 78651 (Dec. 17, 2015)) to determine that untreated and unfinished wood from the trunks of trees do not contain lead or the ASTM F963 elements in concentrations greater than the specified solubility limits. TERA also noted that, although phthalates can be taken up by trees and plants, the concentrations are negligible and less than the specified limit (0.1 percent).

    Although TERA reported that the majority of EWPs are manufactured with virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste fiber or chips, the wood component also can originate from recycled material. For EWPs made from recycled wood waste that may contain post-consumer wood waste, the TERA report highlighted the potential for lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates to be present in concentrations greater than those specified through the use of contaminated recycled material. The TERA report cited multiple examples of the use of reclaimed or post-consumer wood material used to produce EWPs, both domestically and internationally. Specifically, TERA found studies showing that reclaimed lumber and wood waste could contain a myriad of contaminants, such as surface treatments (e.g., paints, stains), metals, glues and adhesives, glass, paper, plastic, rubber and chemical treatments. Metals and organic materials may be present in paints, stains, varnishes, and polishes that are used on wood products (e.g., furniture, window frames) and nails, screws, and other metal hardware might be attached to the recycled and recovered wood. These contaminants are intimately attached to the wood, and therefore, some contaminants may pass through cleaning systems, contaminating the entire recovered wood stream.

    TERA also reviewed another study, based in Italy, which evaluated the “recyclability” of used wood, by conducting elemental analysis of wood residues from wood recycling plants using a handheld fast energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (ED-XRF) device. TERA found that the study provided some indication of the types and levels of contamination in various kinds of post-consumer wood waste. Elemental analysis results were compared to EU Community Ecolabel limits.15 For all wood products tested, 16 percent exceeded one or more of the Ecolabel limits, with the highest concentrations from lead, chromium, chlorine, copper, cadmium, and mercury. No samples had levels of arsenic over the 25 ppm limit (except a CCA-treated utility pole). Barium and lead were found in 10 percent to 20 percent of the samples, chromium and cadmium in 3 percent to 4 percent, and antimony, mercury, and arsenic ranged from 0.3 percent to 1.2 percent of samples. The sources most contaminated with non-wood content were from furniture and building materials, while pallets and shipping containers were least likely to be contaminated.16

    15 Ecolabel element concentrations are less than 25 mg/kg of arsenic, 25 mg/kg of mercury, 25 mg/kg of chromium, 50 mg/kg cadmium, 90 mg/kg lead, and 40 mg/kg copper (EU, 2004). Ecolabel limits are similar to ASTM solubility limits for the ASTM F963 elements.

    16 Twenty-four percent of furniture and 18 percent of building materials had one or more ASTM F963 elements exceeding the limits which may be due to manufacturing processes such as painting, preservation, and overlaying, which are common with furniture and building materials. The most polluted types of wood waste were particleboard (37% exceeded Ecolabel limits), recycled particleboard (25% exceeded), and plywood (18% exceeded); while fiberboard (MDF and HDF) exceeded limits in 9 percent of samples.

    TERA concluded that, with an increased interest and use of post-consumer recycled materials in EWP production, potential contamination by the specified elements and phthalates must be considered. To ensure that EWPs made from used wood fibers do not contain ASTM F963 elements or phthalates that exceed the specified limits, TERA indicated that the materials would need to be sorted carefully and tested to ensure that they are not contaminated.

    Adhesive Formulations

    Adhesive formulations hold together the wood chips, layers, or fibers to make EWP mats and sheets. Some of the formulations use a metal catalyst during the curing process. TERA identified a number of references describing the presence of the ASTM F963 elements in adhesive formulations. However, TERA found very few references that would implicate EWPs. Although the use of barium was noted in multiple references, only one study appeared to be relevant to EWPs. This study suggested that barium, when used as a catalyst in an adhesive, could result in an EWP that exceeded the ASTM solubility level for barium.17 However, this method does not appear to be used currently in EWP production. TERA also noted studies that indicate the possible use of chromium as a catalyst in phenol formaldehyde resin, as well as the possible use of antimony or arsenic in a drier formulation for certain polymeric coatings. However, no references included information on concentrations or appeared to be relevant to EWPs.

    17 Wang and Zhang (2011) studied the use of calcium hydroxide, Ba(OH)2, and magnesium hydroxide and their effect on cure times for phenol formaldehyde adhesive formulations, finding that the use of Ba(OH)2 could be a viable means to speed up cure times. Both calcium hydroxide and Ba(OH)2 had similar cure times and are about the same price in bulk. Because the compounds would be used in an adhesive system, the catalyst is not expected to be recovered and so would remain in situ once curing is complete. If the catalyst remained in the adhesive, it could result in concentrations of barium exceeding the ASTM solubility limits.

    Although many different adhesive formulations may be used in hardwood plywood, TERA noted that PVAc can be used as an adhesive system for hardwood plywood. The report cited sources (The Handbook of Adhesive Technology, USDA), which mentioned the use of some of the specified phthalates in PVAc adhesive formulations.18 TERA also identified research papers that included the use of DBP and DEHP in PVAc at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent.

    18 The USDA publication Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (2010) explains that “Plasticizers, for example dibutyl phthalate, are used to soften the brittle vinyl acetate homopolymer in poly(vinyl acetate) emulsion adhesives. This is necessary to facilitate adhesive spreading and formation of a flexible adhesive film from the emulsion at and below room temperature.”

    C. Discussion of Comments to the NPR

    The CPSC received seven comments in response to the NPR. Five of the comments did not address any matters regarding EWPs. These comments addressed environmental regulation issues concerning alternative energy, electric cars, and greenhouse gas emissions, among other topics. None of these comments addressed EWPs. Accordingly, these comments do not fall within the scope of the current rulemaking. Two comments addressed the proposed determinations for EWPs.

    Comment 1: A commenter states that the use of third party testing and “verification of testing” for lead is important for ensuring product safety and that any change to the testing and verification requirements is “antithetical” to public safety.

    Response 1: The commenter does not provide any data or information about EWPs that would support a testing requirement for lead for certain untreated and unfinished EWPs. Nor does the commenter address the data and information the Commission relied upon to demonstrate that certain untreated and unfinished EWPs do not contain lead above the limits specified by the lead content requirements. The Commission's proposed EWP determinations only apply to EWPs that have not been treated or adulterated with materials that could result in the addition of lead, the ASTM elements, or the specified phthalates at concentrations greater than their specified solubility limits. EWPs that do not meet the provisions of the rule would still be subject to applicable testing requirements.

    Comment 2: A commenter expresses concern regarding the language of the proposed rule's determination, which states: “Accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with engineered wood products not listed in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.” The commenter asserts that the language negates the flexibility of the Commission's 2009 Statement of Policy. The commenter requests a revision of the language to state: “Accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with engineered wood products not listed in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section must still be comprised of compliant materials pursuant to section 108 of CPSIA, Public Law 110-314 as amended by H.R. 2714, Public Law 112-28.”

    Response 2: The proposed EWP determinations do not negate the flexibility of the Commission's 2009 Statement of Policy. 19 That policy was intended to give general guidance on the types of materials that may contain phthalates. Section 108 of the CPSIA is limited to plasticized component parts and other materials that may contain phthalates. The Commission has already identified in the proposed rule the potential use of phthalates in polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) adhesive in hardwood plywood that would result in an EWP with phthalate concentrations greater than 0.1 percent. However, to make it clear that only products that are subject to one or more of the requirements for lead, ASTM elements, and the specified phthalates, or that contain post-consumer wood waste, must be third party tested, the Commission is revising the proposed language in section 1252.3(e). That section now states that accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with engineered wood products other than the specified EWPs listed in the rule, or that contain post-consumer wood waste, are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107 and sections 101, 106, or 108 of the CPSIA, as applicable.

    19https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_componenttestingpolicy.pdf.

    In addition, to reflect the current list of prohibited phthalates in section 108 of the CPSIA, as required in the Commission's final rule issued on October 27, 2017, § 1252.1(c) is revised to include all of the permanently prohibited phthalates in any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, or DCHP.

    D. Determination for EWPs 1. Legal Requirements for a Determination

    As noted above, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires third party testing for children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Children's products must comply with the lead limits in section 101 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 1278a. Children's toys must comply with the solubility limits for elements under the ASTM toy standard in section 106 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 2056b. Children's toys and child care articles must comply with the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 2057c. In response to statutory direction, the Commission has investigated approaches that would reduce the burden of third party testing while also assuring compliance with CPSC requirements. As part of that endeavor, the Commission has considered whether certain materials used in children's products, children's toys, and child care articles would not require third party testing.

    To issue a determination that an EWP does not require third party testing, the Commission must have sufficient evidence to conclude that the product consistently complies with the CPSC's requirements to which the EWP is subject, so that third party testing is unnecessary to provide a high degree of assurance of compliance. Under 16 CFR part 1107, section 1107.2 defines “a high degree of assurance” as “an evidence-based demonstration of consistent performance of a product regarding compliance based on knowledge of a product and its manufacture.”

    For accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles subject to sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA, compliance to the specified content limits is always required, irrespective of any testing exemptions. Thus, a manufacturer or importer who certifies a children's product, children's toy or child care article, must ensure the product's compliance. The presence of lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates do not have to be intended to require compliance. The presence of these chemicals, whether for any functional purpose, as a trace material, or as a contaminant, must be in concentrations less than the specified content or solubility limits for the material to be compliant. Additionally, the manufacturer or importer must have a high degree of assurance that the product has not been adulterated or contaminated to an extent that would render it noncompliant. For example, if a manufacturer or importer is relying on a determination that an EWP does not contain lead, ASTM F963 elements, or specified phthalates in concentrations greater than the specified limits in a children's product, children's toy, or child care article, the manufacturer must ensure that the EWP is one on which a determination has been made.

    The Commission finds, based on the staff's review of TERA's Task 14 report regarding reclaimed or post-consumer waste assessment in EWPs, that EWPs with post-consumer wood content and post-manufacturing waste could contain unwanted contaminants, such as paint or stains, metals from nails or fasteners, or adhesive formulations. Additionally, based on staff's review of the Task 11 and Task 14 reports, the Commission finds that PVAc used as an adhesive formulation in the manufacture of EWPs could contain at least one of the specified phthalates in hardwood plywood manufacturing that could result in the EWP exceeding the allowable levels of the specified phthalates. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there is not a high degree of assurance that EWPs made from post-consumer wood waste or post-manufacturing treatments or finishes are compliant with sections 101, 106, or 108 of the CPSIA, or that hardwood plywood that contain PVAc are compliant with 108 of the CPSIA.

    Based on the information provided in the TERA Task reports, staff's review of TERA's source references in the Task reports, and with the additional clarification that only products that are subject to one or more of the requirements for lead, ASTM elements, and the specified phthalates must be third party tested, the Commission determines that untreated and unfinished EWPs (particleboard, hardwood plywood, and medium-density fiberboard) made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste, do not contain lead, or any of the specified elements in ASTM F963 in concentrations greater than their specified solubility limits. In addition, with the exception of hardwood plywood that contains PVAc adhesive formulations, the Commission determines that the specified EWPs do not contain any of the specified phthalates in concentrations greater than 0.1 percent. The Commission's determinations on EWPs are limited to unfinished and untreated EWPs made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste. Children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made from post-consumer wood waste, or from EWPs that have other materials that are applied to or added on to the EWP after it is manufactured, such as treatments and finishes, would be subject to third party testing requirements, unless the component part has a separate determination which does not require third party testing for certification purposes.

    2. Statutory Authority

    Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the Commission general rulemaking authority to issue regulations, as necessary, to implement the CPSIA. Public Law 110-314, sec. 3, Aug. 14, 2008. Section 14 of the CPSA, which was amended by the CPSIA, requires third party testing for children's products subject to a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(d)(3)(B) of the CPSA, as amended by Public Law 112-28, gives the Commission the authority to “prescribe new or revised third party testing regulations if it determines that such regulations will reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with the applicable consumer product safety rules, bans, standards, and regulations.” Id. 2063(d)(3)(B). These statutory provisions authorize the Commission to issue a rule determining that certain EWPs would not be concentrations greater than their specified limits, and thus, are not required to be third determined to contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, and the specified phthalates in party tested to ensure compliance with sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA.

    The determinations for the specified EWPs would relieve children's product certifiers from third party testing burdens, while assuring compliance with sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA for component parts made from the specified EWPs. However, the determinations would only relieve the manufacturers' obligation to have the specified EWPs tested by a CPSC-accepted third party laboratory. Children's products, children's toys, and child care articles must still comply with the substantive content limits in sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA, regardless of any relief on third party testing requirements. Finally, even if a determination is in effect and third party testing is not required, a certifier must still issue a certificate.

    3. Description of the Rule

    This rule creates a new part 1252 for Children's Products, Children's Toys, and Child Care Articles: Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM F963 elements, and Phthalates for Engineered Wood Products.

    • Section 1252.1(a) of the rule explains the statutorily created requirements that limit lead in children's products under the CPSIA and the third party testing requirements for children's products.

    • Section 1252.1(b) of the rule explains the statutorily created requirements for limiting the ASTM F963 elements in children's toys under the CPSIA and the third party testing requirements for children's toys.

    • Section 1252.1(c) of the rule explains the statutorily created requirements limiting phthalates for children's toys and child care articles under the CPSIA and the third party testing requirements for children's toys and child care articles. This section is revised to reflect the final rule issued on phthalates that permanently prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). In addition, in accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, 16 CFR part 1307 prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), or dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP).

    • Section 1252.2 of the rule provides definitions that apply to part 1252.

    • Section 1252.3(a) of the rule establishes the Commission's determinations that specified EWPs do not exceed the lead content limits with a “high degree of assurance,” as that phrase is defined in 16 CFR part 1107.

    • Section 1252.3(b) of the rule establishes the Commission's determinations that specified EWPs do not exceed the solubility limits for ASTM F963 elements with a “high degree of assurance,” as that phrase is defined in 16 CFR part 1107.

    • Section 1252.3(c) of the rule establishes the Commission's determinations that specified EWPs do not exceed the phthalates content limits, with the exception of hardwood plywood containing PVAc, with a “high degree of assurance,” as that phrase is defined in 16 CFR part 1107.

    • Section 1252.3(d) of the rule provides that accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with the specified EWPs, are not required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.

    • Section 1252.3(e) of the rule is clarified to state that accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with engineered wood products not listed in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this section, or with post-consumer wood waste, are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107 and sections 101, 106, or 108 of the CPSIA, as applicable.

    E. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that a substantive rule must be published not less than 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Because the final rule provides relief from existing testing requirements under the CPSIA, the Commission concludes that 30 days is sufficient. Thus, the effective date is July 23, 2018.

    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must describe the impact of the rule on small entities. CPSC staff prepared a FRFA, which is summarized below.

    CPSC staff's review shows that comprehensive estimates of the number of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles that contain component parts made from the specified engineered woods are not available. However, based on the number of domestic producers and sellers of these products, staff believes that a substantial number of small entities could be impacted by this regulation. Staff's review indicates that there are approximately 81,505 small firms that manufacture or distribute children's products, children's toy or child care articles (6,976 manufacturers + 26,124 wholesalers + 48,405 retailers). Even if only a small proportion of these firms manufacture or sell products using the EWPs of interest, staff finds that a substantial number would benefit from the reduced testing burden. The impact of the determinations on small businesses would be to reduce the burden of third party testing for firms and are expected to be entirely beneficial. The current cost of testing, on a per-test basis, is reflective of the expected cost reductions that would result from the determinations, and are as follows:

    • Lead—The cost of lead testing ranges from $50 to more than $100 per component through Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) testing. If one uses X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry, which is an acceptable method for certification of third party testing for lead content, the costs can be greatly reduced to approximately $5 per component. If a component part made with one of the specified engineered woods is painted, the component part would be exempt from the third party testing requirement, but the paint would still require lead testing.

    • ASTM F963 Elements—Based on published invoices and price lists, the cost of a third party test for the ASTM F963 elements ranges from around $60 in China, up to around $190 in the United States, using ICP. This cost can be greatly reduced with the use of high definition X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (HDXRF), which is an acceptable method for certification of third party testing for the presence of the ASTM elements. The cost can be reduced to about $40 per component part. It should be noted that lead is one of the ASTM elements, so this testing would also cover the cost of lead testing for component parts.

    • Phthalates—The cost of phthalate testing is relatively high: between about $125 and $350 per component, depending upon where the testing is conducted and any discounts that are applicable. Because one product might have multiple components that require testing, the cost of testing a single product for phthalates could exceed $1,000 in some cases. Moreover, more than one sample might have to be tested to provide a high degree of assurance of compliance with the requirements for testing.

    To the extent that small businesses have lower production or lower sales volume than larger businesses, these determinations would be expected to have a disproportionately beneficial impact on small businesses. This beneficial impact is due to spreading the costs of the testing over fewer units. However, small entities that need fewer third party tests may not qualify for discounts that some laboratories may offer their larger customers. In addition, the possible benefits associated with the determinations might be somewhat lower to the extent that firms were already taking advantage of component part testing as allowed by 16 CFR part 1109. Additionally, some firms have reduced their testing costs by using XRF or HDXRF technology, which is less expensive than ICP, and would reduce the marginal benefit of these determinations.

    The determinations would not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities. In fact, because the rule would eliminate a testing requirement, there would be a small reduction in some of the recordkeeping burden under 16 CFR parts 1107 and 1109 because manufacturers would no longer have to maintain records of third party tests for the component parts manufactured from these engineered woods for lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the specified phthalates. Based on staff's review, the Commission finds that the burden reduction from this determination rule could potentially result in significant benefits for a substantial number of manufacturers, importers, or retailers of the relevant product categories.

    Under section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a FRFA should include a “statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.” The final rule is itself, the result of CPSC's efforts to reduce third party testing costs consistent with assuring compliance with all applicable consumer product safety rules. Therefore, CPSC considered few alternatives, other than expanding the list of engineered woods for which determinations could be made. CPSC staff identified these three types of EWPs for study, based on stakeholder feedback, the likelihood of being used in products subject to children's product, children's toy, or child care article certification requirements, and available resources. However, the Commission did not receive any other comments or other information on any additional engineered wood materials for further burden-reduction activities.

    G. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for most Commission rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required. The Commission's regulations state that safety standards for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule alters that expectation.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1252

    Business and industry, Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Product testing and certification, Toys.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission amends title 16 of the CFR by adding part 1252 to read as follows: PART 1252—CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, CHILDREN'S TOYS, AND CHILD CARE ARTICLES: DETERMINATIONS REGARDING LEAD, ASTM F963 ELEMENTS, AND PHTHALATES FOR ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS Sec. 1252.1 Children's products, children's toys, and child care articles containing lead, ASTM F963 elements, and phthalates in engineered wood products and testing requirements. 1252.2 Definitions. 1252.3 Determinations for engineered wood products. Authority:

    Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B).

    § 1252.1 Children's products, children's toys, and child care articles containing lead, ASTM F963 elements, and phthalates in engineered wood products and testing requirements.

    (a) Section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) provides that any children's product, material, or component part or a children's product must comply with a lead content limit that does not exceed 100 parts per million. Materials used in children's products subject to section 101 of the CPSIA must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), unless listed in 16 CFR 1500.91.

    (b) Section 106 of the CPSIA made provisions of ASTM F963, Consumer Product Safety Specifications for Toy Safety, a mandatory consumer product safety standard. Among the mandated provisions is section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963 which requires that surface coating materials and accessible substrates of children's toys that can be sucked, mouthed, or ingested, must comply with solubility limits that the toy standard establishes for eight elements. Materials used in children's toys subject to section 4.3.5 of the toy standard must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, unless listed in 16 CFR 1251.2.

    (c) Section 108(a) of the CPSIA permanently prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). In accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, 16 CFR part 1307 prohibits any children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), or dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP). Materials used in children's toys and child care articles subject to section 108(a) of the CPSIA and 16 CFR part 1307 must comply with the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, unless listed in 16 CFR 1308.2.

    § 1252.2 Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions given in sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA, the following definitions apply for this part 1252.

    Post-consumer wood waste describes wood waste that is comprised of materials that are recovered from their original use and subsequently used in a new product. Examples of this type of waste include recycled demolition wood, packaging materials such as pallets and crates, used wood from landscape care (i.e., from urban and highway trees, hedges, and gardens), discarded furniture, and waste wood from industrial, construction, and commercial activities.

    Pre-consumer wood waste describes wood materials that have been recycled from an industrial process before being made available for consumer use. Examples of this type of waste include trimmings from engineered wood product (EWP) panel manufacturing, sawdust from cutting logs, or remaining wood pieces from sawing a log into framing lumber.

    Unfinished means an EWP that does not have any surface treatments applied at manufacture, such as factory-applied coatings. Examples of such treatments may include paint or similar surface coating materials, wood glue, or metal fasteners, such as nails or screws.

    Untreated means an EWP that does not have any additional finishes applied at manufacture. Examples of such finishes may include flame retardants or rot resistant finishes.

    Virgin wood describes wood logs, fibers, chips, or layers that have not been recycled from a previous use.

    § 1252.3 Determinations for engineered wood products.

    (a) The following engineered wood products do not exceed the lead content limits with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107:

    (1) Particleboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste;

    (2) Hardwood plywood that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste; and

    (3) Medium-density fiberboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste.

    (b) The following engineered wood products do not exceed the ASTM F963 elements solubility limits set forth in 16 CFR part 1250 with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107:

    (1) Particleboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste;

    (2) Hardwood plywood that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste; and

    (3) Medium-density fiberboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste.

    (c) The following engineered wood products do not exceed the phthalates content limits with a high degree of assurance as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 1107:

    (1) Particleboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste;

    (2) Hardwood plywood that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste and does not contain polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) adhesive formulations; and

    (3) Medium-density fiberboard that is untreated and unfinished made from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood waste.

    (d) Accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with EWPs, listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section are not required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107.

    (e) Accessible component parts of children's products, children's toys, and child care articles made with engineered wood products not listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, or that contain post-consumer wood waste, are required to be third party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107 and sections 101, 106, or 108 of the CPSIA, as applicable.

    Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13392 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2018-0021] RIN 0960-AI36 Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor Program AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are extending for one year our rule authorizing attorney advisors to conduct certain prehearing proceedings and to issue fully favorable decisions. The current rule is scheduled to expire on August 3, 2018. In this final rule, we are extending the sunset date to August 2, 2019. We are making no other substantive changes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Swansiger, Office of Hearings Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, (703) 605-8500. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 800-772-1213 or TTY 800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background of the Attorney Advisor Program

    On August 9, 2007, we issued an interim final rule permitting some attorney advisors to conduct certain prehearing proceedings and issue fully favorable decisions when the documentary record warrants doing so. 72 FR 44763. We instituted this practice to provide more timely service to the increasing number of applicants for Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments based on disability. We considered the public comments we received on the interim final rule, and on March 3, 2008, we issued a final rule without change. 73 FR 11349. Under this rule, some attorney advisors may develop claims and, in appropriate cases, issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing.

    We originally intended the attorney advisor program to be a temporary modification to our procedures. Therefore, we included in sections 404.942(g) and 416.1442(g) of the interim final rule a provision that the program would end on August 10, 2009, unless we decided to either terminate the rule earlier or extend it beyond that date by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Since that time, we have periodically extended the sunset date (see 74 FR 33327 extending to August 10, 2011; 76 FR 18383 extending to August 9, 2013; 78 FR 45459 extending to August 7, 2015; 80 FR 31990 extending to August 4, 2017; and 82 FR 34400 extending to February 5, 2018). As we noted above, the current sunset date for the program is August 3, 2018. 83 FR 711.

    Explanation of Extension

    We published the final rule to adopt without change the interim final rule that we published on August 9, 2007. We stated our intent to monitor the program closely and to modify it if it did not meet our expectations. 73 FR 11349.

    We explained in the 2008 final rule that the number of requests for hearings had increased significantly in recent years. From 2008 to the present, the number of pending hearing requests has continued to remain at a high level, and we anticipate that we will receive several hundred thousand hearing requests in fiscal year 2018 and in fiscal year 2019.1 We are extending the program at this time while we continue to consider our options with respect to the program.

    1 Our budget estimates indicate that we expect to receive approximately 582,000 hearing requests in fiscal year 2018 and 578,000 in fiscal year 2019 (available at: https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY19Files/2019CJ.pdf).

    To preserve the maximum degree of flexibility and manage our hearings-level workloads effectively, we have decided to extend the attorney advisor rule until August 2, 2019. As before, we reserve the authority to end the program earlier, to extend it by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register, or to discontinue it altogether.

    Regulatory Procedures Justification for Issuing Final Rule Without Notice and Comment

    We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when developing regulations. Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures for this rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Good cause exists because this final rule only extends the expiration date of an existing rule. It makes no substantive changes to the rule. The current regulations expressly provide that we may extend or terminate this rule. Therefore, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this rule as a final rule.

    In addition, because we are not making any substantive changes to the existing rule, we find that there is good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive rule provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). To ensure that we have uninterrupted authority to use attorney advisors to address the number of pending cases at the hearing level, we find that it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the date of publication.

    Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and although we do not believe that this will be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, OMB has reviewed this final rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    These rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending subpart J of part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of Chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart J—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    2. In § 404.942, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 404.942 Prehearing proceedings and decisions by attorney advisors.

    (g) Sunset provision. The provisions of this section will no longer be effective on August 2, 2019, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart N continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    4. In § 416.1442, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 416.1442 Prehearing proceedings and decisions by attorney advisors.

    (g) Sunset provision. The provisions of this section will no longer be effective on August 2, 2019, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13359 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1929] Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of the Next Generation Sequencing Based Tumor Profiling Test AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the next generation sequencing based tumor profiling test into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the next generation sequencing based tumor profiling test's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.

    DATES:

    This order is effective June 22, 2018. The classification was applicable on November 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott McFarland, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4676, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-6217, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Upon request, FDA has classified the next generation sequencing based tumor profiling test as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.

    The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

    FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and Part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) & 21 CFR part 807, respectively).

    FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.

    Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).

    Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.

    Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)). Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.

    We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or PMA in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.

    II. De Novo Classification

    On September 25, 2017, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Department of Pathology submitted a request for De Novo classification of the MSK-IMPACT (Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets). FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.

    We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on November 15, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 866.6080. We have named the generic type of device next generation sequencing (NGS) based tumor profiling test, and it is identified as a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test intended for NGS analysis of tissue specimens from malignant solid neoplasms to detect somatic mutations in a broad panel of targeted genes to aid in the management of previously diagnosed cancer patients by qualified health care professionals.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

    Table 1—Next Generation Sequencing Based Tumor Profiling Test Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measures Incorrect performance of the test leading to false positives, false negatives General controls and Special control (1) (21 CFR 866.6080(b)(1)). Incorrect interpretation of test results General controls; Special control (1)(21 CFR 866.6080(b)(1)(iii)(E)); and Special control (2) (21 CFR 866.6080(b)(2)).

    FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k).

    III. 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.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collection of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collection of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 801 and 809, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866

    Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:

    PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 866 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 866.6080 to subpart G to read as follows:
    § 866.6080 Next generation sequencing based tumor profiling test.

    (a) Identification. A next generation sequencing (NGS) based tumor profiling test is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test intended for NGS analysis of tissue specimens from malignant solid neoplasms to detect somatic mutations in a broad panel of targeted genes to aid in the management of previously diagnosed cancer patients by qualified health care professionals.

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

    (1) Premarket notification submissions must include the following information:

    (i) A detailed description of all somatic mutations that are intended to be detected by the test and that are adequately supported in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section and reported in the test results in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section, including:

    (A) A listing of mutations that are cancer mutations with evidence of clinical significance.

    (B) As appropriate, a listing of mutations that are cancer mutations with potential clinical significance.

    (ii) The indications for use must specify the following:

    (A) The test is indicated for previously diagnosed cancer patients.

    (B) The intended specimen type(s) and matrix (e.g., formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue).

    (C) The mutation types (e.g., single nucleotide variant, insertion, deletion, copy number variation or gene rearrangement) for which validation data has been provided.

    (D) The name of the testing facility or facilities, as applicable.

    (iii) A detailed device description including the following:

    (A) A description of the test in terms of genomic coverage, as follows:

    (1) Tabulated summary of all mutations reported, grouped according to gene and target region within each gene, along with the specific cDNA and amino acid positions for each mutation.

    (2) A description of any within-gene targeted regions that cannot be reported and the data behind such conclusion.

    (B) Specifications for specimen requirements including any specimen collection devices and preservatives, specimen volume, minimum tumor content, specimen handling, DNA extraction, and criteria for DNA quality and quantity metrics that are prerequisite to performing the assay.

    (C) A detailed description of all test components, reagents, instrumentation, and software required. Detailed documentation of the device software including but not limited to, software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software.

    (D) A detailed description of the methodology and protocols for each step of the test, including description of the quality metrics, thresholds, and filters at each step of the test that are implemented for final result reporting and a description of the metrics for run-failures, specimen-failures, invalids, as applicable.

    (E) A list of links provided by the device to the user or accessed by the device for internal or external information (e.g., decision rules or databases) supporting clinical significance of test results for the panel or its elements in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(v) and (b)(2)(vi) of this section.

    (F) A description of internal and external controls that are recommended or provided and control procedures. The description must identify those control elements that are incorporated into the testing procedure.

    (iv) Information demonstrating analytical validity of the device according to analytical performance characteristics, evaluated either specifically for each gene/mutation or, when clinically and practically justified, using a representative approach based on other mutations of the same type, including:

    (A) Data that adequately supports the intended specimen type (e.g., formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue), specimen handling protocol, and nucleic acid purification for specific tumor types or for a pan-tumor claim.

    (B) A summary of the empirical evidence obtained to demonstrate how the analytical quality metrics and thresholds were optimized.

    (C) Device precision data using clinical samples to adequately evaluate intra-run, inter-run, and total variability. The samples must cover all mutation types tested (both positive and negative samples) and include samples near the limit of detection of the device. Precision must be assessed by agreement within replicates on the assay final result for each representative mutation, as applicable, and also supported by sequencing quality metrics for targeted regions across the panel.

    (D) Description of the protocols and/or data adequately demonstrating the interchangeability of reagent lots and multiplexing barcodes.

    (E) A description of the nucleic acid assay input concentration range and the evidence to adequately support the range.

    (F) A description of the data adequately supporting the limit of detection of the device.

    (G) A description of the data to adequately support device accuracy using clinical specimens representing the intended specimen type and range of tumor types, as applicable.

    (1) Clinical specimens tested to support device accuracy must adequately represent the list of cancer mutations with evidence of clinical significance to be detected by the device.

    (2) For mutations that are designated as cancer mutations with evidence of clinical significance and that are based on evidence established in the intended specimen type (e.g., tumor tissues) but for a different analyte type (e.g., protein, RNA) and/or a measurement (e.g., incorporating a score or copy number) and/or with an alternative technology (e.g., IHC, RT-qPCR, FISH), evidence of accuracy must include clinically adequate concordance between results for the mutation and the medically established biomarker test (e.g., evidence generated from an appropriately sized method comparison study using clinical specimens from the target population).

    (3) For qualitative DNA mutations not described in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(G)(2) of this section, accuracy studies must include both mutation-positive and wild-type results.

    (H) Adequate device stability information.

    (v) Information that adequately supports the clinical significance of the panel must include:

    (A) Criteria established on what types and levels of evidence will clinically validate a mutation as a cancer mutation with evidence of clinical significance versus a cancer mutation with potential clinical significance.

    (B) For representative mutations of those designated as cancer mutations with evidence of clinical significance, a description of the clinical evidence associated with such mutations, such as clinical evidence presented in professional guidelines, as appropriate, with method comparison performance data as described in paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(G) of this section.

    (C) For all other mutations designated as cancer mutations with potential clinical significance, a description of the rationale for reporting.

    (2) The 21 CFR 809.10 compliant labeling and any product information and test report generated, must include the following, as applicable:

    (i) The intended use statement must specify the following:

    (A) The test is indicated for previously diagnosed cancer patients.

    (B) The intended specimen type(s) and matrix (e.g., formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue).

    (C) The mutation types (e.g., single nucleotide variant, insertion, deletion, copy number variation or gene rearrangement) for which validation data has been provided.

    (D) The name of the testing facility or facilities, as applicable.

    (ii) A description of the device and summary of the results of the performance studies performed in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv), and (b)(1)(v) of this section.

    (iii) A description of applicable test limitations, including, for device specific mutations validated with method comparison data to a medically established test in the same intended specimen type, appropriate description of the level of evidence and/or the differences between next generation sequencing results and results from the medically established test (e.g., as described in professional guidelines).

    (iv) A listing of all somatic mutations that are intended to be detected by the device and that are reported in the test results under the following two categories or equivalent designations, as appropriate: “cancer mutations panel with evidence of clinical significance” or “cancer mutations panel with potential clinical significance.”

    (v) For mutations reported under the category of “cancer mutations panel with potential clinical significance,” a limiting statement that states “For the mutations listed in [cancer mutations panel with potential clinical significance or equivalent designation], the clinical significance has not been demonstrated [with adequate clinical evidence (e.g., by professional guidelines) in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section] or with this test.”

    (vi) For mutations under the category of “cancer mutations panel with evidence of clinical significance,” or equivalent designation, link(s) for physicians to access internal or external information concerning decision rules or conclusions about the level of evidence for clinical significance that is associated with the marker in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13406 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 901 [SATS No. AL-080-FOR; Docket ID: OSM-2016-0011; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 189S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 18XS501520] Alabama Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; approval of amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are approving an amendment to the Alabama Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Plan (hereinafter, the Plan) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposed updates to their Plan with changes required by the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA.

    DATES:

    The effective date is July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William L. Joseph, Acting Director, Birmingham Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 135 Gemini Circle, Suite 215, Homewood, Alabama 35209. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background on the Alabama Plan II. Submission of the Amendment III. OSMRE's Findings IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments V. OSMRE's Decision VI. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Alabama Plan

    The Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program was established by Title IV of the Act, (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) in response to concerns over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining activities. The program is funded by a reclamation fee collected on each ton of coal that is produced. The money collected is used to finance the reclamation of abandoned coal mines and for other authorized activities. Section 405 of the Act allows States and Indian tribes to assume exclusive responsibility for reclamation activity within the State or on Indian lands if they develop and submit to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, a program (often referred to as a plan) for the reclamation of abandoned coal mines. Background information on the Alabama Plan, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the approval of the Plan, is found in the May 20, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 22057). Later actions concerning the Alabama Plan and amendments to the Plan, are found at 30 CFR 901.20 and 901.25.

    II. Submission of the Amendment

    By letter dated June 7, 2016 (Administrative Record No. AL-0670), Alabama sent OSMRE an amendment to its Plan under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) at its own initiative.

    We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the April 7, 2017, Federal Register (82 FR 16975). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the amendment. We did not hold a public hearing or meeting because no one requested one. The public comment period ended on May 8, 2017. We did not receive any public comments.

    During OSMRE's review, several minor deficiencies were noted, including section numbering inconsistencies and the lien language in the “Reclamation of Private Land” section. By letter dated July 17, 2017 (Administrative Record No. AL-0670-02), OSMRE requested that Alabama address these minor deficiencies. Because these requested changes were minor, Alabama was given the option to either incorporate the changes or withdraw the amendment and resubmit the Plan amendment at a later date. By letter dated July 28, 2017 (Administrative Record No. AL-0670-03), Alabama returned a revised Plan amendment correcting the deficiencies and the amendment process resumed.

    III. OSMRE's Findings

    We are approving the amendment as described below. The following are the findings we made concerning Alabama's amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 884.14 and 884.15. Any revisions that we do not specifically discuss below concerning non-substantive wording or editorial changes can be found in the full text of the Plan amendment available at www.regulations.gov.

    Alabama Reclamation Plan 1. Governor's Letter of Designation [30 CFR 884.13(a)(1)]

    Alabama included a 1979 letter from the Governor designating the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, now known as the Alabama Department of Labor (ADOL), as the agency responsible for the abandoned mine lands reclamation program in the state of Alabama. This letter was submitted and approved as part of the original proposed reclamation plan and is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(1). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    2. Legal Opinion [30 CFR 884.13(a)(2)]

    Alabama included a 1981 legal opinion from the Attorney General of Alabama authorizing the Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, under the legal authority of Alabama law, to conduct its reclamation program in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of the Act. This legal opinion was submitted and approved as part of the original proposed reclamation plan and is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(2). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    3. Purpose, Goals and Objectives [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(i)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(i) of the Plan, stated that the goal of its AMLR Plan is to amend those adverse effects of past coal mining conducted prior to August 3, 1977, which impact public health, safety, or general welfare, and cause environmental degradation. The stated objectives of the AMLR Plan are to identify and prioritize these adverse impacts, provide planning procedures, and affect their ultimate reclamation. Alabama also stated that, although the primary purpose of the program is the reclamation of coal mine lands, any non-coal AML issues will be dealt with in accordance with OSMRE policies. ADOL elected to set aside up to the maximum amount allowed by OSMRE of each year's allocation of AML funds into a separate fund for the abatement of the causes and treatment of the effects of acid mine drainage. These funds are used in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations and are used to achieve the priorities of SMCRA. The program purpose, goals, and objectives are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(i). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    4. Project Ranking, Selection and Development Procedures [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(ii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(ii) of the Plan, described the priority system and the specific criteria for identifying and ranking all sites eligible for reclamation under Title IV of the Act. Examples of eligible site problems include: Open and unprotected mine entries; open shafts; hazardous highwalls and other steep embankments; hazardous mine structures; underground mine subsidence; trash dumps on mine lands; water bodies adversely affected by coal mine drainage; dangerous impoundments; and any other mine related danger. The sites given highest priority are those exhibiting extreme danger to public health, safety, and property from adverse effects of coal mining practices. The sites given the second highest priority are those exhibiting adverse effects of coal mining practices that may impact public health and safety. The sites given third priority for restoration are those land and water resources previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining, including measures for the conservation and development of soil, water, woodland, fish and wildlife, recreational resources, and agricultural productivity. The three priority categories described are consistent with Section 403(a) of SMCRA. Alabama also describes ADOL's data acquisition procedures in determining site eligibility, which include the review of past mining records (available in the OSMRE's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System (e-AMLIS)), site inventories, field investigations, and public input. Alabama states that site priority will be determined for all eligible sites, regardless of resource recovery potential, and that any resource recovery will be undertaken in accordance with Federal rules. Any remined sites will remain eligible for AML reclamation. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(ii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    5. Coordination With Other Programs [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(iii) of the Plan, described ADOL's coordination with other agencies. The ADOL AML Program coordinates with other State divisions such as the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), to review proposed reclamation projects, provide assistance, and offer expertise to ensure that reclamation activities restore adversely impacted land and water to a productive state while protecting natural and historic/cultural resources. ADOL maintains an annual cooperative agreement with a non-profit organization, the Walker County Soil and Water Conservation District Board (WCB), which funds and oversees a reclamation group that performs reclamation and maintenance on AML sites and responds to AML emergencies. Historically, several major and minor tribes occupied Alabama; however, no tribal reservations were historically or are currently located in the areas where AML reclamation presently takes place within the Alabama Coal Region. Consultations concerning potential cultural resource impacts are conducted through the SHPO's Alabama Historical Commission through the NEPA review process. Alabama also describes the purpose of its AML Emergency Program, which is to stabilize the emergency aspects of an AML problem by eliminating the immediate danger to public health, safety, or general welfare. The AML Emergency Program is discussed further in Section 8, “Rights of Entry.” This description of agency coordination is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    6. Land Acquisition, Management, and Disposal [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iv)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(iv) of the Plan, stated that ADOL may acquire, manage, and dispose of lands that have been adversely affected by coal mining activity, if deemed necessary, pursuant to Section 407 of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1237, and Code of Alabama Section9-16-127. These acquisition, management, and disposition policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    7. Reclamation of Private Land [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(v)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(v) of the Plan, described its policies and procedures for reclamation on private land. Under its Plan, the ADOL State Programs Administrator has the authority to place or waive a lien against private property if the owner has consented to, participated in, or exercised control over the mining operation, and if reclamation will result in a significant increase in property value. If an initial evaluation suggests an increase in property value of $25,000 or more, the land appraisal may be conducted by an independent appraiser. The Administrator will determine whether to place or waive a lien based on both the independent appraisal findings and other relevant facts, in accordance with Code of Alabama Section 9-16-129. During OSMRE's review, it was noted that this section of the Plan, as well as the referenced Alabama state law (Code of Alabama Section 9-16-129), fails to address the full requirements of 30 CFR 882.13(b) in regard to notifying the landowner of the proposed lien and allowing the landowner a reasonable time to pay that amount in lieu of filing the lien. On July 17, 2017 (Administrative Record No. AL-0670-02), OSMRE requested that Alabama add this lien language to its proposed Plan. On July 28, 2017, Alabama returned a revised Plan which incorporated the additional lien language. These revised policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(v) and 882.13(b). Therefore, we are approving this inclusion.

    8. Rights of Entry [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vi)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(vi) and (iii) of the Plan, stated its policies and procedures regarding rights of entry to lands or property. Pursuant to Code of Alabama Section 9-16-126, ADOL will take all reasonable actions to obtain advance written consent from the property owner for the purposes of reclamation. In the event that permission cannot be obtained on properties where reclamation is needed and there is an immediate danger to public health, safety, or general welfare, police power entry is authorized under the AML Emergency Program. If police power entry is necessary, a written notice must be mailed to the property owner at least 30 days prior to entry. If the property owner's address is not known, the notice must be posted on the property and advertised in the newspaper. These policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vi). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    9. Public Participation Policies [30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(3)(vii) of the Plan, described its public participation policies in the development and operation of its Plan. The ADOL encourages the public to contact its office with any questions or concerns regarding mining related problems or the AML program, or to visit the ADOL Inspections Division Abandoned Mine Lands Program Office. For future projects, ADOL distributes notifications to Federal, State, and local elected officials, and publishes public notices to news outlets within the county where the proposed activity is located. If sufficient public response is received, a public meeting may be scheduled to provide information on proposed activities and address the concerns of the citizens. Additional public involvement in the preparation of any revisions or amendments to the AML Plan will be coordinated and executed by OSMRE during the public comment and review period. These policies and procedures are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(3)(vii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    10. Organization of the Designated Agency [30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(i)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(4)(i) of the Plan, described the organization of ADOL and its relationship to other State organizations that may become involved in its reclamation program. ADOL also attached an updated organizational chart. The Inspections Division of ADOL reports to the Commissioner, via the State Programs Administrator. The Commissioner for ADOL reports directly to the Governor. The ADOL AML Program also coordinates with other State divisions such as the ADEM, SHPO, and the ADCNR to review proposed reclamation projects, provide assistance, and offer expertise to ensure that reclamation activities restore adversely impacted land and water to a productive state while protecting natural and historic/cultural resources. This description of agency organization is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    11. Personnel Staffing Policies [30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(ii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(4)(ii) of the Plan, described the personnel staffing policies that will govern the assignment of personnel to its reclamation program. The program's staff is selected on the basis of applicable academic and professional experience. ADOL will be responsible for complying with all pertinent Federal and State laws. This description of agency personnel policies is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(ii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    12. Purchasing and Procurement [30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(4)(iii) of the Plan, stated that the purchasing and procurement systems used by ADOL will be in accordance with the requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102, Attachment 0. Purchasing and procurement program staff is trained in all applicable State and Federal regulations and larger transactions are reviewed, if necessary, by the Alabama Department of Finance, the State Attorney General, the Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, and the State Auditor. Alabama also described its AML Applicant/Violator System (AVS), which ensures that no company owners, directors, or major shareholders bidding on AML Federally funded projects have any Federal coal mining violations or state cessation orders that would render them ineligible. Emergency program contractors are also required to meet AVS clearance requirements, unless an overriding need to proceed is determined. These systems are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    13. Accounting [30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iv)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(4)(iv) of the Plan, described the ADOL's accounting system, including procedures for the operation of the State Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. The ADOL Finance Division is responsible for the proper accounting of Federal draws, income, and expenses, including the maintenance of records for annual audits conducted by the Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts. AML projects, including administrative, operational, and construction costs, are grant-funded and detailed financial records are maintained for auditing purposes, in accordance with 30 CFR part 886 and OMB Circular A-102, Attachment 0. This system description is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(4)(iv). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    14. Eligible Lands and Waters [30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)] [30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(i)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(5) and (a)(5)(i) of the Plan, included a list of documents and data sources offering general descriptions of known or suspected eligible lands and waters within the State of Alabama which potentially required reclamation at the time of publication. Alabama also included a list of counties, in order of significance which have either reported coal mining prior to 1978, currently have conditions associated with past surface mining practices, or currently have physical hazards or environmental conditions associated with past underground mining practices. Alabama also included a mine map repository showing the general location of known or suspected eligible lands and waters within the State which require reclamation. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5) and (a)(5)(i). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    15. Environmental Problems and Reclamation Techniques [30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(ii)] [30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(iii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(5) through (a)(5)(iii) of the Plan, described the problems occurring on known or suspected lands and waters which require reclamation, including a table expressing the percentage of total abandoned mine lands affected by each problem or source. Examples of such problems include: Open shafts and portals; subsidence; highwalls; abandoned structures and equipment; insect or vermin vectors; water impoundments; waste banks; mine-related fires; landslide and flood hazards; pollution of domestic water supplies; erosion; sedimentation; reduced land potential; and aesthetic disamenities. Reclamation techniques to restore the site to an environmentally stable condition will be based on ADOL's site specific assessments, current industry construction standards, and the reclamation cost estimate procedures outlined in OSMRE Directive AML-1. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(ii) and (iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    16. The Economic Base [30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(i)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(6)(i) of the Plan, described the economic base for the state's primary coal producing region, including population size, market accessibility, economic activities, such as agricultural products and manufacturing, and available mining resources. This description is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    17. Significant Aesthetic, Historic, and Recreational Values [30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(ii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(6)(ii) of the Plan, described the aesthetic, historic, and recreational values of Alabama. Alabama stated that, to ensure that all potential impacts of the reclamation process are mitigated, ADOL's Planning and Maintenance Branch will consult with the SHPO's Alabama Historical Commission. This statement is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(ii). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    18. Flora and Fauna of the Northern One-Half of Alabama [30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(iii)]

    Alabama, in section 884.13(a)(6)(iii) of the Plan, stated that, during the planning stages of proposed AML reclamation projects, evaluations are conducted by the Planning and Maintenance Branch to determine the presence of wetlands, endangered species, and other environmental concerns. Recommendations are provided to enhance or improve wildlife habitat, and to preserve wetlands and other critical wildlife habitat during construction. During this process, ADOL consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the project will adversely affect any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species and to develop appropriate mitigation measures and minimize disturbance, if necessary. ADOL also coordinates with the ADCNR and reviews the Outdoor Alabama Watchable Wildlife database to determine whether any important natural features are recorded at or near the proposed reclamation project. These descriptions are consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(6)(iii). Therefore, we are approving their inclusion.

    19. Locations of Documented Coal Mines in Alabama [30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(i)]

    Alabama included a mine map repository showing the general location of known or suspected eligible lands and waters within the State which require reclamation. This map repository is consistent with the Federal requirements of 30 CFR 884.13(a)(5)(i). Therefore, we are approving its inclusion.

    IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments Public Comments

    We asked for public comments on the amendment but did not receive any.

    Federal Agency Comments

    On June 27, 2016, under 30 CFR 884.14(a), we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Alabama plan (Administrative Record No. AL-0670). We did not receive any comments.

    State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

    Under 30 CFR 884.14(a)(2), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On June 27, 2016, we requested comments on Alabama's amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-0670), but neither the SHPO nor ACHP responded to our request.

    V. OSMRE's Decision

    Based on the above findings, we approve the revised amendment Alabama sent us on July 28, 2017 (Administrative Record No. AL-0670-03).

    To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 901, that codify decisions concerning the Alabama Plan. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule will take effect 30 days after the date of publication. Section 405 of SMCRA requires that each state with an abandoned mine reclamation program must have an approved State regulatory program pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. Section 503(a) of the Act requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

    VI. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings

    This rulemaking does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.

    Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review

    Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of state program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule as required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988. The Department determined that this Federal Register document meets the criteria of Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, which is intended to ensure that the agency reviews its legislation and proposed regulations to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, that the agency write its legislation and regulations to minimize litigation, and that the agency's legislation and regulations provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and promote simplification and burden reduction. Because Section 3 focuses on the quality of Federal legislation and regulations, the Department limited its review under this Executive Order to the quality of this Federal Register document and to changes to the Federal regulations. The review under this Executive Order did not extend to the language of the State AML program or to the Plan amendment that the State of Alabama drafted.

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This rule is not a “[p]olicy that [has] Federalism implications” as defined by Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 because it does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Instead, this rule approves an amendment to the Alabama Plan submitted and drafted by that State. OSMRE reviewed the submission with fundamental federalism principles in mind as set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of the Executive Order and with the principles of cooperative federalism as set forth in SMCRA. See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. 1201(f). As such, pursuant to Section 503(a)(1) and (7) (30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7)), OSMRE reviewed the plan amendment to ensure that it is “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA and “consistent with” the regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

    Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rulemaking on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rulemaking does not 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 basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State AML program and does not involve Federal regulations involving Indian lands.

    Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy

    Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rulemaking that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This rulemaking does not require an environmental impact statement because it falls within a categorical exclusion within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). It is documented in the DOI Departmental Manual, 516 DM 13.5(B)(29), that agency decisions on approval of state reclamation plans for abandoned mine lands do not constitute major Federal Actions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rulemaking: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rulemaking.

    Unfunded Mandates

    This rulemaking will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rulemaking, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 901

    Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.

    Dated: May 31, 2018. Paul Ehret, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 901 is amended as set forth below:

    PART 901—ALABAMA 1. The authority citation for part 901 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

    2. Section 901.25 is amended in the table by adding a new entry in chronological order by “Date of final publication” to read as follows:
    § 901.25 Approval of Alabama abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments. Original amendment
  • submission date
  • Date of final publication Citation/description
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * June 7, 2016 June 22, 2018 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan for the State of Alabama.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13434 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 736 [Docket ID: USN-2018-HQ-0002] RIN 0703-AB05 Disposition of Property AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes Department of the Navy regulations governing disposition of property, including surplus real property, warships, other surface vessels, personal property, and strategic materials. The disposal of surplus property is governed by standing authorities found within the U.S. Code. Further, disposal of surplus property is also governed by Department of Defense regulations entitled “Defense Material Disposition.” Therefore, this rule can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Omans at 703-614-5848.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing a duplicative CFR part.

    Removal of this part does not add or reduce the burden or cost on the public in any way. The cost of disposal of surplus property will remain the same with removal of the part.

    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 736

    Surplus Government property.

    PART 736—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 736 is removed. Dated: June 12, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13409 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0541] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cape Fear River, North Carolina, Wilmington, NC 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 U.S. Route 76 (Cape Fear Memorial) Bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, in Wilmington, NC. The deviation is necessary to facilitate routine maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from June 22, 2018 through 5 p.m. on November 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on June 15, 2018, until June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0541] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-6587, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The North Carolina Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the U.S. Route 76 (Cape Fear Memorial) Bridge across the Cape Fear River, mile 26.8, in Wilmington, NC, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate routine maintenance.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will require a four hour advanced notice to open from 12:01 a.m. on June 15, 2018, to 5 p.m. on November 30, 2018. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.822.

    The Cape Fear River is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug 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 any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2018. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13386 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0480] Recurring Safety Zone; Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, Monongahela, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the Monongahela River during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Monongahela, PA. During the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 45, will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018, with a rain date of July 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 45, from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018, with a rain date of July 5, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the Monongahela River during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Monongahela Area Chamber of Congress/Monongahela 4th of July Celebration, which covers a one-mile stretch of the Monongahela River. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: June 15, 2018. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13394 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0479] Recurring Safety Zone; Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration, Wellsburg, WV AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration, to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of Ohio River during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Wellsburg, WV. During the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 68, will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 68, from 9:30 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Ohio River during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Wellsburg 4th of July Committee/Wellsburg 4th of July Freedom Celebration, which covers a one-mile stretch of the Ohio River. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: June 15, 2018. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13395 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0123] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lavaca Bay, Point Comfort, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of Lavaca Bay, Point Comfort, TX. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Point Comfort Bayfront Park during a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0123 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kevin Kyles, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5125, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with 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 Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display occurring on June 30, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-foot radius of the fireworks display. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of life before, during, and after the scheduled firework displays.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 feet of the fireworks launch location at Point Comfort Bayfront Park in the approximate position 28°40′52.93″ N, 096°33′47.723″ W, Point Comfort, TX. The duration of the zone is intended to protect the public from the fireworks display before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled firework displays.

    Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450. All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will impact a small designated area of Lavaca Bay for about two hours on one evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs (via VHF-FM marine channel 16), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), about the zone. In addition, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting two hours that would prohibit entry within 500 feet of the fireworks launch location. 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.T08-0123 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0123 Safety Zone; Lavaca Bay, Point Comfort, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of Lavaca Bay encompassing a 500 feet of the fireworks launch location at Point Comfort Bayfront Park in the approximate position 28°40′52.93″ N, 096°33′47.723″ W, Point Comfort, TX.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi.

    (2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450.

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

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

    Dated: June 15, 2018. E.J. Gaynor, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13428 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0426] Recurring Safety Zone; EQT 4th of July Celebration, Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the EQT 4th of July Celebration to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Pittsburgh, PA. During the enforcement periods, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 47, will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the EQT 4th of July Celebration in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 47, from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on July 4, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable waters of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the EQT 4th of July Celebration, which covers a less than one-mile stretch of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: June 15, 2018. L. McClain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13393 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0507] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone: San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary moving safety zone in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near AT&T Park in support of the San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display on June 22, 2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. to 10:45 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0507. 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 rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Emily Rowan, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-7443 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander 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. Since the Coast Guard received notice of this event on May 26, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

    For similar reasons as those stated 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 Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on June 22, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2018, at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.

    The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of its transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place from 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on June 22, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.

    At 9:30 p.m. on June 22, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 15-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:45 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

    The effect of the temporary safety zone is to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

    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 limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

    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 may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of these safety zones via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    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 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 M16475.1D, 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 of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion 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.T11-928 to read as follows:
    § 165.T11-928 Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay within 100 feet of the fireworks barge during loading at Pier 50, as well as transit and arrival near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA. From 11:00 a.m. until approximately 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2018, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The safety zone will expand to all navigable waters around and under the firework barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′36″ N, 122°22′56″ W (NAD 83), 30 minutes prior to the start of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 10:00 p.m. on June 22, 2018.

    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 11:00 a.m. until approximately 10:45 p.m. June 22, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime community of periods during which these zones will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with § 165.7.

    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

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

    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Anthony J. Ceraolo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13421 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0523] RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated navigation area and safety zone for waters of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers in the vicinity of the Amtrak Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge at mile 7.9 over the Harlem River. The regulated navigation area and safety zone are needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the removal and reinstallation of the swing span portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. During heavy lift operations this regulated navigation area will establish speed restrictions on vessels transiting the Hudson River to eliminate vessel wake. During heavy lift operations entry of vessel or persons into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the First District Commander or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from June 22, 2018 through September 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 12, 2018 through June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0523 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. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management, First Coast Guard District; telephone (617) 223-8351, email [email protected] You may also call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York, telephone (718) 354-4195, 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 RNA Regulated Navigation Area § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 1, 2018, Amtrak sent the U.S. Coast Guard a letter describing work it would be conducting to remove and replace the moveable portion of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge over the Harlem River at mile 7.9. On May 7, 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard District One Bridge Administration notified Amtrak, the bridge owner, that it had no objections to the proposed project.

    From May 27 to September 29, 2018, Amtrak will be repairing the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This repair project includes the removal and reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge.

    During the removal of the swing span a crane barge and support vessels will be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be lifted from the bridge by a heavy lift crane barge and then secured to another barge. The barge with the swing span will then be towed away and moored west of the bridge, in the Hudson River. These operations, from preparing for the removal of the swing span, removing and securing the swing span to the waiting barge, to mooring the barge with the secured swing span in the Hudson River, will take approximately 72 hours. Amtrak anticipates this work will be conducted over a three-day period between June 12 and June 17, 2018.

    During the reinstallation of the swing span a barge and support vessels will again be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be lifted from a support barge by a heavy lift crane barge and reinstalled. The preparation for and reinstallation of the swing span will take approximately 72 hours. Amtrak anticipates this work will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15 and July 28, 2018.

    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)(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 schedule for the removal and reinstallation of the swing span was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this bridge project. The schedule for the repairs and notification to the Coast Guard was delayed by the late finalization of project details, including coordinating the two heavy lift operations with the schedules of known waterway users, and writing a Maintenance of Waterway Traffic Plan. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this RNA and safety zone by June 12, 2018, to allow for timely repairs to the bridge's swing span and promote the safety of the public.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The First District Commander has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge swing span removal and reinstallation will be a safety concern for anyone within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The RNA and safety zone are needed to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from hazards associated with the removal and replacement of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. The Coast Guard anticipates that crane lifting operations may create the potential for falling debris into the waterway. The RNA is needed to limit vessel speed and wake of all vessels operating in the Hudson River in the vicinity to minimize the unexpected or uncontrolled movement of water. Construction operations utilizing a crane barge are sensitive to water movement and wake from passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to construction workers.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a RNA and safety zone from noon on Monday, June 12, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 30, 2018.

    The RNA covers all waters of the Hudson River, approximately 500 yards upstream, and downstream, of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge from surface to bottom bound by the following approximate positions starting south of a line drawn from 40°53′15.67″ N, 073°56′29.22″ W, thence to 40°52′56.48″ N, 073°55′21.57″ W, and all waters north of a line drawn from 40°52′47.97″ N, 073°56′42.85″ W, thence to 40°52′31.58″ N, 073°55′45.06″ W (NAD 83), excluding the portion of the safety zone surrounding the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge as discussed in the following paragraph.

    The safety zone covers all waters of the Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, from surface to bottom, bound by the following approximate positions starting on the Manhattan side of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge with position 40°52′38.20″ N, 073°55′36.70″ W, thence to 40°52′39.96″ N, 073°55′43.75″ W, thence to 40°52′46.34″ N, 073°55′36.90″ W, thence to 40°52′43.98″ N, 073°55′29.83″ W, thence along the Bronx shoreline to the Henry Hudson Bridge at mile 7.2 of the Harlem River, thence south across the Harlem River following along the Henry Hudson Bridge to the Manhattan side, thence along the Manhattan shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83). For illustrations of the RNA and the safety zone, please refer to the docket.

    During operations involving the removal and reinstallation of the swing span a safety zone will prohibit the transit of vessels in the Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This safety zone will protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge swing span removal and reinstallation project.

    Additionally, during the removal and reinstallation of the swing span all vessels transiting the Hudson River within the regulated navigation area (RNA) will be required to follow a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. When this RNA is enforced, no vessel may produce a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The heavy lift operations involving the removal and reinstallation of the bridge swing span are currently scheduled to take place in June and July 2018. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable, through September 30, 2018, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

    We anticipate enforcing the RNA and safety zone during the two periods of heavy lift operations, one occurring between June 12 and approximately June 17, 2018 and the other between approximately July 15 and July 28, 2018. The RNA and safety zone is expected to be enforced for approximately two 72-hour periods when vessels are preparing for, and conducting, the swing span removal and reinstallation operations. The duration of enforcement for both the RNA and safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these waters while the bridge span is being removed and reinstalled. During the enforcement periods, all vessels and persons must obtain permission from the First District Commander or a designated representative before entering the safety zone.

    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this RNA and safety zone through the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 in advance of any enforcement period. The regulatory text we are enforcing appears at the end of this document.

    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 following reasons: (1) The RNA and safety zone only impact a small designated area of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers; (2) the RNA and safety zone will only be enforced during heavy lift operations tentatively scheduled to occur between June 12-17, 2018, for the swing span removal, and between July 15-28, 2018, for the swing span reinstallation; (3) persons or vessels may transit the RNA at any time, subject to a speed restriction during any periods of enforcement; (4) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so when the heavy lift operations are not in progress; (5) the Coast Guard previously published the approximate project dates in the LNM #18-2018 dated May 2, 2018, LNM #19-2018 dated May 9, 2018, LNM #20-2018 dated May 17, 2018, LNM #21-2018 dated May 23, 2018, LNM #22 dated May 30, 2018, and also requested impacted mariners to contact the contractor to discuss their schedules and receive email schedule updates; (6) the contractor contacted known waterway users to discuss the project and waterway impacts. Although the heavy lift operations will result in two periods of enforcement of a safety zone, closing the Harlem River in the vicinity of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, these operations are scheduled to accommodate sight-seeing vessels and marine events to the greatest extent possible.

    The Coast Guard will also notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as the LNM and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    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 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, call1-888-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 creation of an RNA and a safety zone, both of which are expected to be enforced for two periods each lasting approximately 72 hours. The RNA is will restrict the speed of vessels transiting the Hudson River within approximately 500 yards upstream and downstream of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge while heavy lift operations are conducted. The safety zone will prohibit vessels on the Hudson and Harlem Rivers from coming within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge during heavy lift operations. 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 will be 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.T01-0523 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0523 Regulated navigation area and safety zone; Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY.

    (a) Location—(1) Regulated navigation area. The following is a regulated navigation area: All waters of the Hudson River, approximately 500 yards upstream, and downstream, of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge from surface to bottom starting south of a line drawn from 40°53′15.67″ N, 073°56′29.22″ W, thence to 40°52′56.48″ N, 073°55′21.57″ W, and all waters north of a line drawn from 40°52′47.97″ N, 073°56′42.85″ W, thence to 40°52′31.58″ N, 073°55′45.06″ W (NAD 83), excluding the portion of the safety zone surrounding the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) Safety zone. The following is a safety zone: All waters of the Hudson River and Harlem River within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge, from surface to bottom, bound by the following approximate positions starting on the Manhattan side of Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge with position 40°52′38.20″ N, 073°55′36.70″ W, thence to 40°52′39.96″ N, 073°55′43.75″ W, thence to 40°52′46.34″ N, 073°55′36.90″ W, thence to 40°52′43.98″ N, 073°55′29.83″ W, thence along the Bronx shoreline to the Henry Hudson Bridge at mile 7.2 of the Harlem River, thence south across the Harlem River following along the Henry Hudson Bridge to the Manhattan side, thence along the Manhattan shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, a designated representative of the First District Commander is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the First District Commander to act on his or her behalf. A designated representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, other designated craft, or on shore and communicating with vessels via VHF-FM radio, loudhailer, or by phone. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of the regulations in this section.

    (c) Regulations—(1) Regulated navigation area. (i) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.

    (ii) During periods of enforcement, entry and movement within the RNA is subject to a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. No vessel may produce a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway.

    (iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel transiting within this RNA must comply with all directions given to them by the First District Commander or the First District Commander's designated representative.

    (2) Safety zone. (i) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.

    (ii) Entry into, anchoring, loitering, or movement within the safety zone is prohibited during any periods of enforcement, including preparations for the heavy lift operations, the heavy lift operations, and necessary follow-on actions. This prohibition does not apply to vessels authorized to be within the zone by the District Commander or the District Commander`s designated representative.

    (iii) During periods of enforcement, any vessel or person transiting through the safety zone must comply with all orders and directions from the District Commander or the District Commander's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section will be subject to enforcement from noon on June 12, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on June 17, 2018; from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on July 28, 2018, and at other times during the effective period of this rule when the COTP New York issues a notice of enforcement to be published in the Federal Register. In addition the COTP New York will provide notice by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or both, to announce whenever this section is subject to enforcement or whenever an announced enforcement period will be suspended. Violations of this regulation may be reported to the COTP New York at (718) 354-4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: June 12, 2018. A.J. Tiongson, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13441 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0531] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Detonation, Gulf of Mexico,Pensacola, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico near Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the detonation of unexploded ordnance. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from June 22, 2018 through June 30, 2018. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 14, 2018 through June 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0531 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 Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 251-441-5940, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Mobile 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must enforce this safety zone starting June 14, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It is also contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with the detonation of unexploded ordnance.

    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 is contrary to public interest because it would delay the safety measures necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with the detonation of unexploded ordnance.

    The United States Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Fort Pickens Munitions Response Site 01—Range Complex, located in Escambia County, Florida. The site, which is located along the western tip of Santa Rosa Island and extends south into the Gulf of Mexico, was used for coastal defense from before the Civil War until after World War II. There is a potential that the marine investigation may encounter munitions that will require in-water detonation to address potential explosive hazards. The safety zone will encompass a 1,000 yard square area detonation area surrounded by a 1,200 yard buffer area. The United States Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for the detonation of ordnance within the safety zone.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the detonation of unexploded ordnance beginning on June 14, 2018 will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons on the Gulf of Mexico near Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with the detonation of unexploded ordnance.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from June 14, 2018 through June 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Gulf of Mexico within the approximate positions 30°17′47.65″ N, 87°21′36.5″ W; 30°17′47.65″ N, 87°19′39.8″ W; 30°16′6.35″ N, 87°19′39.8″ W; and 30°16′6.35″ N, 87°21′36.5″ W near Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL. The safety zone will encompass a 1,000 yard square area detonation area surrounded by a 1,200 yard buffer area. A chart depicting the area is included in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    The duration of this safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment, and will only be enforced if and when the detonation of unexploded ordnance is necessary. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter or transit within the safety zone during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The periods of enforcement will be one hour prior to, during, and after any ordnance exploding operations. The Coast Guard was informed that the operations would take place during daylight hours only. A law enforcement vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) at least 3 hours in advance of each enforcement period.

    Entry into the temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Mobile. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 251-441-5976. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement periods of this safety zone through BNMs, LNMs, and/or MSIBs as appropriate.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    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 determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Gulf of Mexico only as necessary for the detonation of ordnance during a two and half week period. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary 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 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 temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry on a small designated area of the Gulf of Mexico near Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL only as necessary for the detonation of ordnance. 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 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0531 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0531 Safety Zone; Unexploded Ordnance Detonation, Gulf of Mexico, Pensacola, FL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters on the Gulf of Mexico within the approximate positions 30°17′47.65″ N, 87°21′36.5″ W; 30°17′47.65″ N, 87°19′39.8″ W; 30°16′6.35″ N, 87°19′39.8″ W; and 30°16′6.35″ N, 87°21′36.5″ W near Fort Pickens in Pensacola, FL.

    (b) Effective dates. This section is effective without actual notice from June 22, 2018 through June 30, 2018. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 14, 2018 through June 22, 2018.

    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced during the effective period one hour prior to, during, and after any ordnance exploding operations. The operations will take place during daylight hours only. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) at least 3 hours in advance of each enforcement period. A law enforcement vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement periods.

    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Mobile.

    (2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter into or transit through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 251-441-5976.

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

    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement periods of this safety zone through BNMs, LNMs, and/or MSIBs as appropriate.

    Dated: June 6, 2018. M.R. McLellan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Mobile.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13433 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184; FRL-9979-50] RIN 2070-AJ22 Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Notification of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is announcing the availability of training materials covering the expanded training content required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for both agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The publication of this notification of availability triggers the WPS requirement that training programs must include all of the topics specified in the 2015 revisions to the WPS.

    DATES:

    Training programs must include all of the topics specified in 40 CFR 170.401(c)(3)(i)-(xxiii) and 170.501(c)(3)(i)-(xiv) no later than December 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    EPA is not requesting, and does not expect to receive, comments on this notification of availability. Questions should be directed to: Jennifer Park, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0121; email address: [email protected].

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you work in or employ persons working in crop production agriculture where pesticides are applied. 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:

    • Agricultural Establishments (NAICS code 111000), e.g., establishments or persons, such as farms, orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries, primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, vines, or trees and their seeds.

    • Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in (1) growing nursery products, nursery stock, shrubbery, bulbs, fruit stock, sod, and so forth, under cover or in open fields and/or (2) growing short rotation woody trees with a growth and harvest cycle of 10 years or less for pulp or tree stock.

    • Timber Tract Operations (NAICS code 113110), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in the operation of timber tracts for the purpose of selling standing timber.

    • Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products (NAICS code 113210), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in (1) growing trees for reforestation and/or (2) gathering forest products, such as gums, barks, balsam needles, rhizomes, fibers, Spanish moss, ginseng, and truffles.

    • Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 115112, and 115114), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in providing support activities for growing crops; establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, such as plowing, fertilizing, seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services; and establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing services on crops, subsequent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for market or further processing.

    • Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in performing a soil preparation activity or crop production service, such as seed bed preparation, planting, cultivating, and crop protecting services.

    • Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders (NAICS code 115115), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in supplying labor for agricultural production or harvesting.

    • Pesticide Handling in Forestry (NAICS code 115310), e.g., establishments or persons primarily providing support activities for forestry, such as forest pest control.

    • Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS code 325320), e.g., establishments primarily engaged in the formulation and preparation of agricultural and household pest control chemicals (except fertilizers).

    • Farm Worker Support Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 813312, and 813319), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting causes associated with human rights either for a broad or specific constituency; establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting the preservation and protection of the environment and wildlife; and establishments primarily engaged in social advocacy.

    • Farm Worker Labor Organizations (NAICS code 813930), e.g., establishments or persons primarily engaged in promoting the interests of organized labor and union employees.

    • Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712) e.g., establishments or persons who primarily provide advice and assistance to businesses and other organizations on scientific and technical issues related to pesticide use and pest pressure.

    II. Background

    On November 2, 2015, EPA published a final rule making changes to the WPS, 40 CFR part 170, referred to as the “2015 revised WPS” (80 FR 67496) (FRL-9931-81). The WPS is a regulation primarily intended to reduce the risks of injury or illness resulting from agricultural workers' and handlers' use of and contact with agricultural pesticides on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The rule primarily seeks to protect workers (those who perform hand-labor tasks on pesticide-treated crops, such as harvesting, thinning or pruning) and handlers (those who mix, load and apply pesticides). The 2015 revised WPS requirements retained many of the 1992 WPS requirements, while increasing the stringency of some standards and adding new requirements.

    III. Availability of Training Materials and Deadline for Compliance With New Training Requirements

    Sections 170.401 and 170.501 of the 2015 revised WPS allowed employers to omit certain topics from training materials until 180 days after EPA publishes in the Federal Register a notification of availability of new WPS training materials. EPA is announcing the availability of new training materials covering the expanded training content for both workers and handlers. These materials, developed through a cooperative agreement with the Pesticide Education Resources Collaborative (PERC), are available at http://pesticideresources.org/. These materials have been approved by EPA and contain the content required by the 2015 revised WPS. There are also new training materials developed by other organizations that have been approved by EPA and contain the content required by the 2015 revised WPS; some of these materials are available on the PERC website and others are proprietary.

    EPA is currently reconsidering three requirements of the 2015 revised WPS and plans to solicit comments on potential changes to the designated representative provision, the minimum age for handlers and early-entry workers, and the application exclusion zone. If those requirements are changed through a final rulemaking, training materials may need to be amended to reflect such changes.

    The publication of this notification of availability of the training materials specified in 40 CFR 170.401(c)(3) and 170.501(c)(3) commences the 180-day period provided in those provisions. Per §§ 170.401(c)(3) and 170.501(c)(3), WPS training programs must include all of the topics specified in §§ 170.401(c)(3)(i)-(xxiii) and 170.501(c)(3)(i)-(xiv) no later than December 19, 2018.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170

    Environmental protection, Agricultural worker, Employer, Farms, Forests, Greenhouses, Nurseries, Pesticide handler, Pesticides, Worker protection standard.

    Dated: June 13, 2018. Charlotte Bertrand, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13353 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0071; FRL-9978-08] Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether; Tolerance Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether, number average molecular weight 1900 daltons; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. SciReg, Inc. on behalf of Solvay USA Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether on food or feed commodities.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0071, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

    C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0071 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0071, by one of the following methods.

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

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

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

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

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15528) (FRL-9975-57), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11112) filed by SciReg, Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192 on behalf of Solvay USA Inc., 504 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether (CAS Reg. No. 2112825-11-1). That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. No relevant comments were received on the notice of filing.

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

    III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur.

    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).

    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(6)

    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria: Specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):

    The polymer's number average MW of polymer's number average MW is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer contains only reactive functional groups listed in 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1)(ii)(A).

    Thus, oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether.

    IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether is 1900 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

    V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity

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

    EPA has not found oxirane,2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the expected low toxicity of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

    VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether.

    VIII. Other Considerations A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing exemptions from a tolerance for oxirane,2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether polymers.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

    IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy)methylethoxy]methylether] ether from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

    X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    XI. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 8, 2018. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.960, alphabetically add the following polymer to the table to read as follows:
    §  180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Polymer CAS No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono[2-[2-(2-methoxymethylethoxy) methylethoxy]methylether] ether, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 1400 daltons CAS Reg. No. 2112825-11-1. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13457 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156; FRL-9976-21] Tolfenpyrad; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26641) (FRL-9961-14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 7F8544 and PP 7F8543) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808-2951. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.675 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide tolfenpyrad, 4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on Brassica head and stem vegetable group (crop group 5-16) at 5.0 parts per million (ppm) (PP 7F8544); Brassica leafy greens subgroup (4-16B) at 40 ppm (PP 7F8544); Vegetables, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); Vegetables, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.7 ppm (PP 7F8544); and Apple, wet pomace at 2.5 ppm (PP 7F8544). The petitions also requested that established tolerances be amended for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.9 ppm (PP 7F8544; PP 7F8543); Citrus, dried pulp at 3.0 ppm (PP 7F8544; PP 7F8543); and Citrus, oil at 28.0 ppm (PP 7F8544; PP 7F8543). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nichino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notices of filing. Consistent with the authority in section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is establishing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    A variety of toxic effects were noted in the toxicology database for tolfenpyrad. However, the most consistent finding across species and studies was decreased body weight and/or body weight gain, which were observed in adults of all species (rat, mice, rabbit, and dog) in the majority of the subchronic oral and dermal toxicity studies, and all chronic toxicity studies.

    The rat is the species most sensitive to body weight changes, with effects observed at much lower doses than in other species. In rats, significant decreases in body weight and body weight gain were observed in subchronic oral and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies. Decreases in body weight and body weight gain were also seen in chronic rat studies but at lower doses than observed in the other rat studies. Although seen at lower doses, the body weight decrements noted in the chronic study were not as pronounced as seen after subchronic exposure or in the neurotoxicity studies. Decreases in body weight and body weight gain were also observed in reproduction, developmental toxicity, and developmental immunotoxicity studies at doses comparable to the chronic study. Significant decreases in body weight and body weight gain were seen in both mice and dogs after subchronic exposure; these effects were also noted in rabbits in a developmental toxicity study. Chronic exposure resulted in body weight and body weight gain decreases in mice and dogs at lower doses for longer duration studies.

    The body weight changes observed in the database were most often seen in the presence of decreased food consumption and in some studies, additional toxicity including liver/kidney effects and clinical signs. Increased liver and kidney weights, liver and kidney hypertrophy, hyaline droplets in the kidney, and color change in the kidney were seen after subchronic exposure in rats. Chronic exposure resulted in similar effects along with color changes in the liver and liver histopathology at slightly lower doses than in the subchronic studies. Other effects noted in rats were effects on the harderian gland and lymph nodes. In dogs, both changes in liver and kidney histopathology, along with testicular atrophy and clinical signs (emaciation, decreased movement, and staggering gait) were seen in short-term studies. Long-term exposure resulted in histopathological changes in the liver, along with increased liver enzymes. No treatment-related effects were noted in the liver or kidney in mice. However, rough coats, hunched posture, ataxia, and hypoactivity were seen in subchronic studies.

    Moribundity and/or mortality were noted in at least one study in all tested species at ≥3 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Moribundity and mortality were noted in two dams in a rat reproduction study. Mortality was also noted in one dam in a rabbit developmental toxicity study, as well as in two rats from an inhalation toxicity study (range-finding only). In mice and dogs, mortality was observed in both subchronic and chronic toxicity studies. In all cases, these effects were observed only after repeat-dose exposures, and the current points of departure (PODs) for the relevant exposure durations are protective of the observed mortality.

    There is no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the guideline rat and rabbit developmental studies, or the rat reproduction study. Although several adverse effects were noted in young animals in these studies, the effects were observed in the presence of significant maternal toxicity (significant body weight changes and/or moribundity/mortality). In a non-guideline rat developmental immunotoxicity (DIT) study, decreased survival, body weight, body weight gain, increased blackish abdominal cavity, and dark green abnormal intestinal contents were observed in offspring animals at 3 mg/kg/day. At the same dose, decreased body weight (up to 10%), body weight gain (up to 36%) and food consumption were seen in maternal animals. This is consistent with the other developmental toxicity studies in the database, in which offspring toxicity is observed at the same dose as significant maternal toxicity. There was no evidence of immunotoxicity observed in the study.

    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies for tolfenpyrad. Although hunched posture, ataxia, and hypoactivity were seen in mice in a 28-day toxicity study, these effects were not seen in a 90-day study or after chronic exposure. In dogs, decreased spontaneous movement and staggering gait were observed after 13 weeks. In rats, decreased motor activity and prone position (lying face down) prior to death were noted in a reproduction study. Overall, the effects noted in the database were agonal effects mainly seen at high doses, not associated with neuropathology, and not noted in long-term studies. The effects observed are consistent with the mode of action for tolfenpyrad (mitochondrial inhibitor) and are not considered evidence of neurotoxicity.

    No evidence of carcinogenicity was observed in cancer studies with mice and rats. Therefore, in accordance with EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 2005), tolfenpyrad is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by tolfenpyrad as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Tolfenpyrad—Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment of Proposed New Uses on Multiple Commodities” at pages 11-15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0156.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

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

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Tolfenpyrad for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day.
  • Acute Neurotoxicity Study in rats.
  • LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on decreased bodyweight, bodyweight gain and food consumption.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 0.6 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10X
  • UFH = 10X
  • FQPA SF = 1X
  • Chronic RfD = 0.006 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.006 mg/kg/day.
  • Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study in rats.
  • LOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day based on decreased bodyweight, bodyweight gain, and food consumption of females, gross changes in the harderian glands of males, and histopathological changes in the liver, kidney and mesenteric lymph nodes of females and the kidney of males.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on the absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to tolfenpyrad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing tolfenpyrad tolerances in 40 CFR 180.675. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tolfenpyrad in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for tolfenpyrad. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumes 100 percent crop treatment (PCT) and tolerance-level residues with minor refinements including a factor to account for the reduction in residues when wrapper leaves are removed from head lettuce and cabbage, as well as empirical processing factors for tomato juice, paste, and puree, cottonseed oil, citrus juice, and grape juice (which was translated broadly to other juices for which empirical data were not available).

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumes 100 PCT and average residue levels from crop field trials as well as minor refinements listed above for acute exposure. Although partially refined, the chronic exposure estimates still retain a high level of conservatism due to the source and scope of the refinements, and are likely to overestimate the actual chronic dietary risk.

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

    iv. Anticipated residues and percent crop treated. Although EPA did not use any percent crop treated estimates for this action, the Agency relied on average residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

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

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of tolfenpyrad for acute exposures are estimated to be 26.9 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 11.0 ppb for ground water, for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 12.2 ppb for surface water and 11.0 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 26.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 12.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Tolfenpyrad is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

    EPA has not found tolfenpyrad to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and tolfenpyrad does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that tolfenpyrad does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Although evidence is noted for qualitative susceptibility in the young in the developmental immunotoxicity study (DIT) in rats, there is low concern and there are no residual uncertainties regarding increased quantitative or qualitative prenatal and/or postnatal susceptibility for tolfenpyrad. When the DIT study is considered along with the reproduction study, the offspring toxicity in the DIT study was observed at the same dose as comparable maternal toxicity (moribundity/mortality) in the reproduction study. Therefore, EPA does not consider the isolated incident in the DIT a true indicator of qualitative susceptibility. Additionally, the effects observed in the DIT study are well-characterized, a clear NOAEL was identified, and the endpoints chosen for risk assessment are protective of potential offspring effects.

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

    i. The toxicity database for tolfenpyrad is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that tolfenpyrad is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. Although there is some evidence that tolfenpyrad may result in increased susceptibility, the concern for developmental or reproductive effects is low for the reasons contained in Unit III.D.2., and thus, a 10X FQPA safety factor is not necessary to protect infants and children.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues for the acute dietary exposure and average residue levels from crop field trials for the chronic dietary exposure. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to tolfenpyrad in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by tolfenpyrad.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to tolfenpyrad will occupy 54% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to tolfenpyrad from food and water will utilize 68% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for tolfenpyrad.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediated-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, tolfenpyrad is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposures. Short- and intermediate-term risks are assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there are no short- or intermediate-term residential exposures and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- and intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- and intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for tolfenpyrad.

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies, utilizing high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS), are available for enforcement of tolfenpyrad residue tolerances in/on plant commodities (Morse Laboratories Analytical Method #Meth-183, Revision #2). For livestock, a method described in PTRL West Study No. 1841W is available. The livestock method adequately determines residues of tolfenpyrad and its metabolites, PT-CA, OH-PT-CA, and PCA in milk, bovine meat, kidney, liver and fat. Residues are determined by LC/MS/MS analysis. These methods are adequate for enforcement and may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]epa.gov.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for tolfenpyrad in commodities in this action.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA's tolerance levels are expressed to provide sufficient precision for enforcement purposes, and this may include the addition of trailing zeros (such as 0.30 ppm rather than 0.3 ppm). This is done to avoid the situation where rounding of an observed violative residue to the level of precision of the tolerance expression would result in a residue considered non-violative (such as 0.34 ppm being rounded to 0.3 ppm). EPA added additional zeros for fruiting vegetables group 8-10 and cucurbit vegetables group 9. EPA is establishing tolerances for residues in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.80 ppm instead of 0.9 ppm; citrus, oil at 30 ppm instead of 28.0 ppm; and citrus, dried pulp at 4.0 ppm instead of 3.0 ppm, based on the previously reviewed orange processing study, and the newly submitted lemon field trial residues as the input dataset for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) MRL calculation procedure. In addition, the tolerances in fruits, pome, group 11-10 and apple wet pomace are based on the petitioner's revision of the proposed maximum annual use rate on pome fruits, from 0.42 lb ai per acre (lb ai/A) to 0.57 lb ai/A.

    D. International Trade Considerations

    In this rule, EPA is reducing the existing tolerances for citrus commodities as follows: Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 1.5 ppm to 0.80 ppm; citrus, dried pulp from 8.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and citrus, oil from 70 ppm to 30 ppm. The Agency is reducing these tolerances because these reductions requested by the petitioner are supported by available data. This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to domestically produced and imported foods.

    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA will notify the WTO of its tolerance revision. In addition, the SPS Agreement requires that Members provide a “reasonable interval” between the publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into force in order to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to adapt to the new requirement. At this time, EPA is establishing an expiration date for the existing tolerances to allow those tolerances remain in effect for a period of six months after the effective date of this final rule, in order to address this requirement. Prior to the expiration date, residues of tolfenpyrad up to the existing tolerance levels will be permitted; after the expiration date, residues will need to comply with the reduced tolerance levels.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tolfenpyrad, 4-chloro-3-ethyl-1-methyl-N-[4-(p-tolyloxy)benzyl]pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 5.0 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 40 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.70 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 1.0 ppm; and Apple, wet pomace at 3.0 ppm. Furthermore, established tolerances are amended for residues of tolfenpyrad in or on Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 from 1.5 ppm to 0.80 ppm; Citrus, dried pulp from 8.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; and Citrus, oil from 70 ppm to 30 ppm. Finally, the tolerances for “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10” at 0.70 ppm and “Watermelon” at 0.70 ppm in paragraph (b), which cover residues resulting from the section 18 emergency exemptions, are removed as it is superseded by the tolerances established for group 9 in this action.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 8, 2018. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.675: a. Revise the table in paragraph (a)(1); and b. Remove the entries for “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10” and “Watermelon” in the table in paragraph (b).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 180.675 Tolfenpyrad; tolerance for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Almond hulls 6.0 Apple, wet pomace 3.0 Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B 40 Citrus, dried pulp 1 8.0 Citrus, dried pulp 4.0 Citrus, oil 1 70.0 Citrus, oil 30 Cotton, gin byproducts 15.0 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.70 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 1 1.5 Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 0.80 Fruit, pome, group 11-10 1.0 Fruit, stone, group 12-12 2.0 Grape 2.0 Grape, raisin 6.0 Nuts, tree, group 14-12 0.05 Persimmon 2.0 Plum, prune 3.0 Pomegranate 2.0 Potato 0.01 Tea 30.0 Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 5.0 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.70 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 0.70 Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 30.0 1 This tolerance expires on December 24, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13456 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0235; FRL-9976-41] Acetochlor; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of acetochlor in or on alfalfa and related animal commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Monsanto Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0235, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0235 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0235, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8408) (FRL-9972-17), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F8533) by Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW, Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.470 (a) General., be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide acetochlor,(2-chloro-2′-methyl-6′-ethyl-N-ethoxymethylacetanilide), and its metabolites containing either the 2-ethyl-6-methylaniline (EMA) or the 2-(1-hydroxyethyl)-6-methyl-aniline (HEMA) moiety, to be expressed as acetochlor equivalents, resulting from applications to soil or growing crops, in or on Alfalfa, forage at 8 parts per million (ppm), Alfalfa, hay at 20 ppm, Cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm, Cattle, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Goat, fat at 0.02 ppm, Goat, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Goat, meat at 0.02 ppm, Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Hog, kidney at 0.02 ppm, Horse, fat at 0.02 ppm, Horse, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Horse, meat at 0.02 ppm, Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Milk at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, and to amend 40 CFR part 180.470 (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues., by adding alfalfa as an exception in the description of the commodities as follows: Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, forage, and Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, hay. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Monsanto Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the proposed 8 ppm tolerance for alfalfa forage to 8.0 ppm. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Acetochlor has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure and is minimally irritating to the eyes. A dermal irritation study indicates that it is a severe skin irritant. Acetochlor is also a strong dermal sensitizer. Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity screening studies in rats, developmental toxicity studies in rats, and subchronic and chronic studies in dogs. In addition to the nervous system, the major target organs affected in subchronic and chronic studies in rats, dogs, and mice exposed to acetochlor are the liver, thyroid (secondary to liver), kidney, testes, and erythrocytes. Species-specific target organs include the nasal olfactory epithelium in rats and the lungs in mice.

    There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of fetuses or offspring to acetochlor exposure in the developmental and reproduction toxicity studies in rats and rabbits. In two developmental toxicity studies in rats, fetal effects (increased early resorptions, post-implantation loss, and decreased fetal weight) occurred at doses that also resulted in maternal toxicity (mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, and decreased maternal body weight). In two rabbit developmental toxicity studies, there were no adverse fetal effects at the highest doses tested (190 mg/kg/day and 300 mg/kg/day); whereas maternal toxicity (body weight loss) was seen at 190 mg/kg/day in one study. In three reproduction toxicity studies in rats, offspring effects (decreased pup weights in the first two studies; decreased pup weights, decreased F2 litter size at birth, and focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third study) occurred at the same or higher doses than those resulting in parental toxicity (decreased body weight or weight gain in the first two studies; focal hyperplasia and polypoid adenomata in nasal epithelium of adult F1 offspring at study termination in the third study). There was no evidence of reproductive toxicity observed at any dose tested in two of the three reproductive toxicity studies in rats. The third reproduction study in rats showed a decreased number of implantations at the highest dose tested of 216 mg/kg/day.

    There was evidence of carcinogenicity in studies conducted with acetochlor in rats and mice. A 23-month mouse carcinogenicity study showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in females, and a 78-week study showed weak evidence for increased benign lung tumors in males. The increases were considered equivocal, based on increases in benign tumors only, inconsistent dose-responses between the two studies, inconsistencies in the responses of males and females between the two studies, lack of pre-neoplastic lung lesions in the 23-month study (while the 78-week study showed an increase in bronchiolar hyperplasia), and the variable incidence of lung tumors known to occur in older mice.

    Two carcinogenicity studies in rats showed an increase in nasal epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors. Thyroid tumor incidence was relatively low, and there was evidence that the tumors were due to disruption of thyroid-pituitary homeostasis. There are acceptable mode of action data for the rat tumors (nasal olfactory epithelial tumors and thyroid follicular cell tumors) which are adequate to support a non-linear, margin of exposure (MOE), approach for assessment of cancer risk. The data show that, like the related compounds, alachlor and butachlor, tumor formation is dependent upon local cytotoxicity secondary to oxidative damage by a reactive quinone imine intermediate. The mechanistic data on nasal tumorigenesis of acetochlor in the rat, when considered together with the mutagenicity data on acetochlor and consistent findings in mechanistic and mutagenicity studies on the closely related compound alachlor, are considered adequate to demonstrate a cytotoxic, non-mutagenic mode of tumor induction.

    Because a clear mode of action was demonstrated for the rat tumors, EPA based the cancer classification on the data from the mouse. EPA classified acetochlor as “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” based on weak evidence for benign lung tumors in male and female mice and histiocytic sarcomas in female mice, and determined that linear quantification of carcinogenic potential would not be appropriate for the mouse tumors. The rat nasal tumors, with a point of departure (POD) of 10 mg/kg/day, are the most sensitive effect for cancer risk. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the chronic dog study, will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer effects, including rat nasal tumors, thyroid tumors, and mouse tumors.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by acetochlor as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Acetochlor: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use on Alfalfa and Related Animal Commodities at [insert page number] in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0235.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for acetochlor used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 22, 2014 (79 FR 3512) (FRL-9904-19).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to acetochlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing acetochlor tolerances in 40 CFR 180.470. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetochlor in food as follows:

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

    Such effects were identified for acetochlor. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues except for livestock commodities where anticipated residues were used, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, anticipated residues from field trial data and livestock feeding studies were used, while 100% crop treated assumptions (including feed items) were made for all commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice summarized in Unit III.A., EPA classified acetochlor as having “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” but determined that the chronic risk assessment will be protective of both non-cancer and cancer effects. Therefore, a separate exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for acetochlor in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of acetochlor. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of acetochlor for acute exposures are estimated to be 74.9 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 129 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.84 ppb for surface water and 82.6 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 129.0 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value of 82.6 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Acetochlor is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

    The chloroacetanilides have been evaluated by the Agency and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) as a related group of chemicals for this purpose. Acetochlor is included in a Cumulative Assessment Group of chloroacetanilide pesticides. For purposes of a cumulative risk assessment, it was determined that the common mechanism of toxicity group consists of alachlor, acetochlor, and butachlor. Butachlor is excluded from the group for risk assessment purposes at present because there are no registered uses or tolerances for this chemical in the U.S. The group was selected based on common endpoints of:

    i. Nasal turbinate tumors in rats, and a known mechanism of toxicity for development of these tumors.

    ii. Induction of hepatic uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyl transferase (UDPGT), which results in increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell tumors secondary to disruption of pituitary-thyroid homeostasis.

    Thyroid effects were not included in the final cumulative assessment of the chloroacetanilide herbicides because they were determined to occur at excessively toxic dose levels, and therefore were not considered relevant to human risk assessment. Nasal tumors represent the most sensitive endpoint for both compounds.

    A cumulative risk assessment of the chloroacetanilide pesticides acetochlor and alachlor was conducted in April 2007 and did not identify any cumulative risks of concern. A revised quantitative cumulative assessment was not conducted because the proposed new use on alfalfa would not affect the cumulative risk results. The new use on alfalfa is not anticipated to affect the cumulative risk results for the following reasons: The major risk driver in the cumulative assessment was alachlor in drinking water, domestic alachlor uses are being phased out (tolerances are being maintained for imported foods), cumulative dietary exposure was not of concern when accounting for the contribution from alachlor, acetochlor is a very minor contributor to chloroacetanilide cumulative risk when compared to alachlor, and acetochlor is less toxic than alachlor. No further cumulative evaluation is necessary for acetochlor use on alfalfa.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increase in susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in three multi-generation reproductive toxicity studies in rats. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose levels which were the same or greater than those causing maternal or parental toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, there is no concern for increased qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility of the young following exposure to acetochlor.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for acute dietary, chronic dietary, and dermal. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for acetochlor is complete for the purpose of evaluating this tolerance petition.

    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity from exposure to acetochlor was observed in several oral studies. However, these effects were typically observed at high doses. The points of departure selected for risk assessment are protective of the potential neurotoxicity observed in the database.

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

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to acetochlor in drinking water. The acute dietary exposure analysis used tolerance level residues except for livestock commodities where anticipated residues were used and 100 PCT. The chronic dietary exposure analysis used anticipated residues from field trial data and livestock feeding studies, while 100% crop treated assumptions (including feed items) were made for all commodities and 100 PCT. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acetochlor.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. In examining acute aggregate risk, the only pathway of exposure relevant to the acute time frame is dietary exposure. Therefore, the acute aggregate risk is comprised of exposures to acetochlor residues in food and drinking water and is equivalent to the acute dietary risk estimates. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to acetochlor will occupy 1.6% of the aPAD for infants <1-year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. In examining chronic aggregate risk, the only pathway of exposure relevant to the chronic time frame is dietary exposure. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is comprised of exposures to acetochlor residues in food and drinking water and is equivalent to the chronic dietary risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to acetochlor from food and water will utilize 26% of the cPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for acetochlor.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure take into account short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure from food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Acetochlor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short-term or intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to acetochlor through food and water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has concluded that assessments using a non-linear approach (e.g., a chronic RfD-based approach) will adequately protect for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to acetochlor. Chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern; therefore, cancer risk is also below the Agency's level of concern.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An Enforcement Analytical Method is available to enforce the proposed tolerances. The method is a high performance liquid chromatography/oxidative coulometric electrochemical detector (HPLC/OCED) method and is listed as Method I in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II (§ 180.470).

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for acetochlor on alfalfa commodities, but there are Codex MRLs established for livestock commodities at 0.02 ppm. The tolerances established in this rulemaking are harmonized with the Codex MRLs for livestock commodities, except for the U.S. kidney tolerances, which are being established at 0.03 ppm.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has revised the 8 ppm tolerance for alfalfa forage to 8.0 ppm, in accordance with policy. No other revisions were needed.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acetochlor, in or on Alfalfa, forage at 8.0 ppm, Alfalfa, hay at 20 ppm, Cattle, fat at 0.02 ppm, Cattle, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Cattle, meat at 0.02 ppm, Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Goat, fat at 0.02 ppm, Goat, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Goat, meat at 0.02 ppm, Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Hog, kidney at 0.02 ppm, Horse, fat at 0.02 ppm, Horse, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Horse, meat at 0.02 ppm, Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, Milk at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, kidney at 0.03 ppm, Sheep, meat at 0.02 ppm, Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney at 0.02 ppm, and to amend 40 CFR part 180.470 (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues., by adding alfalfa as an exception in the description of the commodities as follows: Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, forage, and Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, hay.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 5, 2018. Michael Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.470, i. Add alphabetically the entries “Alfalfa, forage”; “Alfalfa, hay”; “Cattle, fat”; “Cattle, kidney”; “Cattle, meat”; “Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney”; “Goat, fat”; “Goat, kidney”; “Goat, meat”; “Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney”; “Hog, kidney”; “Horse, fat”; “Horse, kidney”; “Horse, meat”; “Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney”; “Milk”; “Sheep, fat”; “Sheep, kidney”; “Sheep, meat“; “Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney”; to the table in paragraph (a) and ii. Revise the commodities “Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, forage”, and “Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, hay” in the table in paragraph (d).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.470 Acetochlor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Alfalfa, forage 8.0 Alfalfa, hay 20 *    *    *    *    * Cattle, fat 0.02 Cattle, kidney 0.03 Cattle, meat 0.02 Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.02 *    *    *    *    * Goat, fat 0.02 Goat, kidney 0.03 Goat, meat 0.02 Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.02 Hog, kidney 0.02 Horse, fat 0.02 Horse, kidney 0.03 Horse, meat 0.02 Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.02 Milk 0.02 *    *    *    *    * Sheep, fat 0.02 Sheep, kidney 0.03 Sheep, meat 0.02 Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 0.02 *    *    *    *    *

    (d) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, forage 1.3 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, except alfalfa, hay 3.5 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13459 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0448; FRL-9978-50] Thiencarbazone-methyl; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of thiencarbazone-methyl in or on wheat forage. Bayer CropScience requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0448, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0448 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0448, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 6, 2018 (83 FR 9471) (FRL-9973-27), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7F8583) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that the existing wheat, forage tolerance in 40 CFR 180.645 for residues of the herbicide thiencarbazone-methyl, methyl 4-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate, be amended from 0.10 parts per million (ppm) to 0.15 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments related to this tolerance action were received on the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Thiencarbazone-methyl has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. Thiencarbazone-methyl is not an eye nor a skin irritant and it is not a skin sensitizer.

    The most toxicologically significant effect of thiencarbazone-methyl occurs in the urothelial system including the kidney, bladder, and urinary tract. Across species, the dog is more sensitive than the rat or the mouse. Common effects observed throughout the database included sulfonamide crystals in the urine, eosinophilic urolithiasis (kidney, ureter and bladder stones), pelvic dilation, thickening of the kidney, bladder, or ureter, collecting duct hyperplasia, urothelial hyperplasia, submucosal inflammatory cell infiltration, bladder hemorrhage, inflammation, and ulceration.

    There is no evidence of susceptibility in the thiencarbazone-methyl database. Offspring effects occurred at the same doses as those which caused maternal toxicity. In rats, maternal toxicity was indicated by decreased body and placenta weight and yellowish sediment in the urinary bladder. Developmental toxicity was indicated by delayed ossification of several locations. In rabbits, maternal toxicity consisted of decreased body weight, deaths, reduced food consumption and sediment in the kidney and urinary bladder. Developmental toxicity consisted of more runt fetuses and lower body weight in female offspring. There were no effects on reproductive parameters in either males or females in a reproductive study in rats. Systemically, there were effects on the urothelial system at the high dose in the parents and decreases in body weight in females toward the end of lactation. There was also evidence of reduced absolute and relative liver weight in males in the high dose F1 group. The pups also demonstrated evidence of urothelial effects as indicated by the presence of stones in the kidneys and urinary bladder in a few F2 weanlings at the highest dose tested.

    There is no evidence of immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, or mutagenicity in the thiencarbazone-methyl database. There were no treatment-related increases in neoplasia in the rat carcinogenicity study. In mice, calculi in the urothelial system as well as transitional cell epithelium tumors in the urinary bladder (1 male/3 females) and in the prostatic urethra (1 male) were observed at the highest dose tested (599 mg/kg/day in males and 758 mg/kg/day in females). Since the neoplasia occurred only in the high dose group, thiencarbazone-methyl was classified as “not likely to be a carcinogen to humans at doses that do not cause urothelial cytotoxicity.” The formation of the tumors is considered to be related to the secondary effects of the urothelial toxicity (irritation) and regenerative proliferation associated with the formation of urinary tract crystals/calculi.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by thiencarbazone-methyl as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, Thiencarbazone-methyl Human Health Risk Assessment, at pages 39-42 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0448.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

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

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Thiencarbazone-Methyl for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for
  • risk assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) No selection because no indication of significant toxicity following a single dose. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 117 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 1.17 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 1.17 mg/kg/day.
  • Dog chronic feeding.
  • LOAEL = 117 mg/kg/day based on urothelial effects.
  • Oral short-term (adult and incidental oral for children) (1 to 30 days) NOAEL= 159 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Residential MOE = 100 Dog subchronic study.
  • LOAEL = 335 mg/kg/day in males and 351 mg/kg/day in females based on urothelial effects.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL = 159 mg/kg/day
  • DAF = 100%
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Residential MOE = 100 Dog subchronic study.
  • LOAEL = 335 mg/kg/day in males and 351 mg/kh/day in females based on urothelial effects.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL= 159 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Residential MOE = 100 Dog subchronic study.
  • LOAEL = 335 mg/kg/day in males and 351 mg/kg/day in females based on urothelial effects.
  • Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not cause urothelium cytotoxicity.” FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). DAF= dermal absorption factor.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to thiencarbazone-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing thiencarbazone-methyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.180.645. EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiencarbazone-methyl in food as follows:

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

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

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the dietary model Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID). The modeled exposure estimates for the chronic assessment are based on tolerance level residues and assume 100% of the crops are treated.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to thiencarbazone-methyl because the chronic reference dose is protective of any cancer or pre-cancerous effect observed in carcinogenicity studies. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for thiencarbazone-methyl. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for thiencarbazone-methyl in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of thiencarbazone-methyl. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of thiencarbazone-methyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.36 ppb for surface water and 0.00079 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 0.36 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Thiencarbazone-methyl is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Application to residential turfgrass and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:

    • Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-term in duration. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners. There is a potential for inhalation and dermal exposure for adult handlers.

    • Post-application exposure is expected to be short-term in nature. There is a potential for dermal exposure to adults and children and incidental oral exposure to children ages 1 <2 years old through contact with treated areas after treatment.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

    EPA has not found thiencarbazone-methyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and thiencarbazone-methyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that thiencarbazone-methyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young. Offspring effects occurred at the same doses as those which caused maternal toxicity.

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

    i. The toxicity database for thiencarbazone-methyl is considered complete. There are available developmental studies in rats and rabbits, a reproductions study in rats, and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity battery studies. The requirement for a subchronic inhalation study was waived because thiencarbazone-methyl has low volatility, low acute inhalation toxicity and the use of a POD from an oral study to estimate inhalation exposures results in MOEs that are >100 times higher than the MOEs of concern.

    ii. There is no indication that thiencarbazone-methyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

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

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to thiencarbazone-methyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiencarbazone-methyl.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

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

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to thiencarbazone-methyl from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Thiencarbazone-methyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to thiencarbazone-methyl. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 9,200 to adults, 140,000 for children 11-16 years old, 13,000 for children 6-11 years old, and 7,500 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for thiencarbazone-methyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, thiencarbazone-methyl is not expected to pose a intermediate-term risk.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in section III.A., thiencarbazone-methyl is considered “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not cause urothelial cytotoxicity.” Because the Agency is regulating exposure to thiencarbazone-methyl to ensure that the U.S. population will not be exposed to levels that cause urothelial cytotoxicity, EPA concludes that thiencarbazone-methyl will not pose an aggregate cancer risk.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for thiencarbazone-methyl.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is amended for residues of thiencarbazone-methyl, methyl 4-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate, in or on wheat forage at 0.15 ppm. In addition, EPA is revising the tolerance expression to clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of thiencarbazone-methyl not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing tolerance expression.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 1, 2018. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Deputy Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.645, a. Revise paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; b. Revise the entry for “wheat, forage” in the table in paragraph (a)(1); c. Revise paragraph (a)(2) introductory text; and d. Revise paragraph (d) introductory text.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 180.645 Thiencarbazone-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the thiencarbazone-methyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only only thiencarbazone-methyl [methyl 4-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate] in or on the following food and feed commodities.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Wheat, forage 0.15 *    *    *    *    *

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of thiencarbazone-methyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of thiencarbazone-methyl [methyl 4-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate] and its metabolite BYH 18636-MMT [5-methoxy-4-methyl-2,4-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazol-3-one], calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiencarbazone-methyl, in or on the following food commodities of animal origin:

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established for residues of thiencarbazone-methyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of thiencarbazone-methyl [methyl 4-[[[(4,5-dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-5-methyl-3-thiophenecarboxylate] and its metabolite BYH 18636-MMT-glucoside [2-hexopyranosyl-5-methoxy-4-methyl-2,4-dihydro-3H-1,2,4-triazol-3-one], calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiencarbazone-methyl, in or on the following food commodities:

    [FR Doc. 2018-13453 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167; FRL-9977-94] Benzovindiflupyr; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a petition filed by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), this regulation establishes tolerances for residues of benzovindiflupyr in or on bluegrass, forage at 0.15 parts per million (ppm), bluegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, bluegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, bromegrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, bromegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, bromegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, fescue, forage at 0.15 ppm, fescue, hay at 7.0 ppm, fescue, straw at 6.0 ppm, orchardgrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, orchardgrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, orchardgrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, and ryegrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, ryegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, and ryegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 22, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 26, 2017 (82 FR 34664) (FRL-9963-50), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6F8542) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.686 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide benzovindiflupyr (N-[9-(dichloromethylene)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-1,4-methanonaphthalen-5-yl]-3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), in or on grasses grown for seed, forage at .15 parts per million (ppm); grasses grown for seed, hay at 7 ppm; and grasses grown for seed, straw at 6 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Although one commenter requested that this petition be denied, no basis or information was provided to support a denial of this petition.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    The rat is the most sensitive species tested, and the target organs of benzovindiflupyr are the liver, thyroid, and kidneys in rats. Hepatotoxicity was manifested as changes in liver weights, liver hypertrophy, and decreased triglycerides. The kidney effects were tubular cell pigment deposits, changes in the tubular basophilia, and increased urea. Enlargement and focal c-cell hyperplasia of the thyroid were observed. An increased incidence of cell hypertrophy in the pituitary pars distalis was noted in the F1 generation males and females in the 2-generation reproductive toxicity rat study. Mouse studies revealed distended large intestines, soft feces and hyperplasia of the colon and caecum. Indications of general malaise including decreased body weight and food consumption, decreased activity, decreased grip strength, piloerection, decreased response to stimulus, hunched posture, gait changes and/or ataxia were reported in the rat and mouse studies. In several studies, females tended to be more sensitive than males, and effects were generally seen at lower doses with gavage dosing than with dietary dosing.

    There are no concerns for developmental or reproductive toxicity following benzovindiflupyr exposure. Decreased fetal weight and ossification in the rat developmental toxicity studies occurred at maternally toxic doses. There were no maternal or fetal adverse effects in the rabbit developmental study. In rat reproduction studies, offspring effects (decreased body weight, liver and pituitary effects) occurred at doses higher than those causing parental effects, thus there was no quantitative increase in sensitivity in rat pups. There were no single-dose developmental effects identified in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits. Although decreases in growing follicle counts were noted in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study, this effect did not result in reduced fertility in the rat. Furthermore, the antral follicle counts at a later stage in development were not decreased, so the decreased growing follicle count effect is not considered adverse.

    No evidence of specific neurotoxicity was observed in the acute oral (gavage) and sub-chronic oral (dietary) neurotoxicity (ACN and SCN) studies in rats, conducted on the benzovindiflupyr technical product. Although benzovindiflupyr caused decreased activity and decreased grip strength in the neurotoxicity studies, there was no supportive neuro-histopathology in any study to indicate a specific neurotoxic effect.

    The mouse immunotoxicity study was negative by the T-cell Dependent Antigen Response (TDAR) assay in the mouse.

    No systemic effects were noted at the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day in the 28-day dermal rat study.

    The Agency classified benzovindiflupyr as showing “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential” based on the presence of granular cell tumors of the brain in male rats only at the highest dose tested. The Agency concluded that a non-genotoxic mode of action for thyroid tumors observed in male rats has been established as a result of upregulation of uridine diphosphate glucuronyltransferase (UDPGT), increased clearance of T3 and T4 hormones, and increased TSH levels, resulting in increased thyroid cell proliferation, which progress to form thyroid tumors. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats or in male or female mice. In addition, there is no concern for mutagenicity. The Agency has determined that using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD; reference dose) will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to benzovindiflupyr.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by benzovindiflupyr as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled Benzovindiflupyr. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Use on Grasses Grown for Seeds on pages 30-36 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0167.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for benzovindiflupyr used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52669) (FRL-9967-33).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to benzovindiflupyr, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing benzovindiflupyr tolerances in 40 CFR 180.686. EPA assessed dietary exposures from benzovindiflupyr in food as follows:

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

    Such effects were identified for benzovindiflupyr. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to benzovindiflupyr. A separate cancer assessment was not performed.

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

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

    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of benzovindiflupyr for acute exposures are estimated to be 8.41 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.14 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.41 ppb for surface water and 0.14 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 8.41 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 5.41 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Benzovindiflupyr is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: The residential uses of benzovindiflupyr will result in short-term residential handler and post-application exposure in residential settings. Only residential handler inhalation and post-application incidental oral exposure scenarios have been quantitatively assessed since no dermal hazard was identified. Residential handler short-term inhalation MOEs are well above the LOC of 100 for all scenarios assessed and are not of concern (inhalation MOEs are ≥180,000). Residential post-application (incidental oral) MOEs for children ranged from 8,000 to 3,600,000 on the day of application, using default input values, and are not of concern.

    The residential scenarios for the benzovindiflupyr aggregate assessments are as follows: Adults: Inhalation exposures from treating ornamentals with a manually pressurized hand-wand or backpack sprayer; children 1 to <2 years old: Post-application hand-to-mouth exposures from treated turf. These scenarios resulted in the highest residential exposures and are considered protective of other exposure scenarios.

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

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

    EPA has not found benzovindiflupyr to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and benzovindiflupyr does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that benzovindiflupyr does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in fetuses or offspring in the rat and rabbit developmental studies or in the 2-generation rat reproduction study. Benzovindiflupyr produced effects in rat fetuses (i.e., decreased fetal weight and ossification) in developmental toxicity studies at maternally toxic doses. In the rabbit developmental study, there were no adverse effects in either the does or the fetuses at the highest dose tested. In reproduction studies, offspring effects occurred at doses higher than those causing parental effects; thus, there was no quantitative increase in sensitivity in rat pups. The LOAELs and NOAELs for the rat developmental and rat reproduction studies were clearly defined.

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

    i. The toxicity database for benzovindiflupyr is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that benzovindiflupyr is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

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

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to benzovindiflupyr in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by benzovindiflupyr.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to benzovindiflupyr will occupy 43% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to benzovindiflupyr from food and water will utilize 19% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of benzovindiflupyr is not expected.

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

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 2100 for adults and 510 for children. Because EPA's LOC for benzovindiflupyr is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

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

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. Based on the results of the chronic risk assessment, which accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure to benzovindiflupyr.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate analytical method is available to enforce the proposed tolerances for benzovindiflupyr in the specified grass commodities. A Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) multi-residue method (EN15662:2009) was developed for the determination of residues of benzovindiflupyr via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for benzovindiflupyr.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The registrant petitioned for the use of benzovindiflupyr in or on grasses grown for seed, forage at 0.15 parts per million (ppm), grasses grown for seed, hay at 7 ppm and grasses grown for seed, straw at 6 ppm. The Agency has not established a crop group for “grasses grown for seed” or otherwise defined what commodities are included in the category of “grasses grown for seed”. The closest group tolerance to the commodity category requested is a crop group tolerance on grasses (i.e., “grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17”), although this group includes all grasses, whether grown for seed or not. Sufficient representative commodity residue data were not submitted to support establishing a crop group 17 tolerances; therefore, the Agency is establishing tolerances for the individual grasses for which residue data were submitted: Bluegrass, bromegrass, fescue, orchardgrass, and ryegrass.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of benzovindiflupyr, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on bluegrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, bluegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, bluegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, bromegrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, bromegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, bromegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, fescue, forage at 0.15 ppm, fescue, hay at 7.0 ppm, fescue, straw at 6.0 ppm, orchardgrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, orchardgrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, orchardgrass, straw at 6.0 ppm, and ryegrass, forage at 0.15 ppm, ryegrass, hay at 7.0 ppm, and ryegrass, straw at 6.0 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 1, 2018. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Deputy Director Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.686, add alphabetically the commodities: “Bluegrass, forage”; “Bluegrass, hay”; “Bluegrass, straw”; “Bromegrass, forage”; “Bromegrass, hay”; “Bromegrass, straw”; “Fescue, forage”; “Fescue, hay”; “Fescue, straw”; “Orchardgrass, forage”; “Orchardgrass, hay”; “Orchardgrass, straw”; “Ryegrass, forage”; “Ryegrass, hay”; and “Ryegrass, straw” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.686 Benzovindiflupyr; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Bluegrass, forage 0.15 Bluegrass, hay 7.0 Bluegrass, straw 6.0 Bromegrass, forage 0.15 Bromegrass, hay 7.0 Bromegrass, straw 6.0 *    *    *    *    * Fescue, forage 0.15 Fescue, hay 7.0 Fescue, straw 6.0 *    *    *    *    * Orchardgrass, forage 0.15 Orchardgrass, hay 7.0 Orchardgrass, straw 6.0 *    *    *    *    * Ryegrass, forage 0.15 Ryegrass, hay 7.0 Ryegrass, straw 6.0 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13454 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1802 RIN 2700-AE46 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Definitions (NFS Case 2018-N017) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA is issuing a final rule to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) to remove definitions which affect only the internal Agency administrative procedures and have no cost or administrative impact on contractors or prospective contractors.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 21, 2018. Comments due on or before July 23, 2018. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2018-N017, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “NFS Case 2018-N017”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “NFS Case 2018-N017”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “NFS Case 2018-N017” on any uploaded files.”

    Email: [email protected] Include “NFS Case 2018-N017” in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geoffrey S. Sage, NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Suite 5K32, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-2420.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    NFS part 1802, Definitions of Words and Terms, contains the following definitions that affect only the internal Agency administrative procedures and have no cost or administrative impact on contractors or prospective contractors: Administrator, Contracting activity, Head of the agency or agency head, Head of the contracting activity (HCA), NASA Acquisition internet Service (NAIS), Procurement officer, and Senior Procurement Executive. Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, NASA is continually reviewing existing regulations with the objective of reducing or removing any unnecessary, outdated and burdensome requirements that have outlived their intended purpose. Because the definitions affect only the internal Agency administrative procedures they can be removed from the regulatory section of the NFS.

    NASA does not anticipate opposition to the changes or significant adverse comments. However, if the Agency receives significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    II. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    Publication of proposed regulations, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it makes nonsubstantive changes to Agency regulations that has no impact on contractors or prospective offerors as the definitions being removed affect only the internal Agency administrative procedures.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Executive Order 13371

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant NFS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 and therefore does not require publication for public comment.

    VI. 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).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1802

    Government procurement.

    Geoffrey Sage, NASA FAR Supplement Manager. PART 1802—[REMOVED] Accordingly, under the authority of 51 U.S.C. 20113(a), 48 CFR part 1802 is removed.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13475 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1827 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE45 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Reference to the Supplemental Rights in Data Special Works Policy and Associated Clause (NFS Case 2018-N016) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA is issuing a final rule to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) to remove reference to the supplemental rights in data special works policy and associated clause.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 21, 2018. Comments due on or before July 23, 2018. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2018-N016, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “NFS Case 2018-N016”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “NFS Case 2018-N016”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “NFS Case 2018-N016” on any uploaded files.”

    Email: [email protected]. Include “NFS Case 2018-N016” in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Brett, NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Suite 5G25, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-0687.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    NFS 1827.409(i), and associated clause 1852.227-17, Rights in Data-Special Works, require that whenever the words “establish” and “establishment” are used in clause 52.227-17, Rights in Data, those words shall be construed to mean “assert” and “assertion”, respectively. In 2007, 52.227-17 was modified. As a result of the modification, the words “establish” and “establishment” no longer appear in the clause. With the modification of 52.227-17, the requirement for NFS 1827.409(i), and associated clause 1852.227-17, Rights in Data-Special Works, is rendered unnecessary. Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, NASA is continually reviewing existing regulations with the objective of reducing or removing any unnecessary, outdated and burdensome requirements that have outlived their intended purpose, NFS 1827.409(i), and associated clause 1852.227-17, Rights in Data-Special Works, were reviewed and recommended for removal from the NFS since they are no longer applicable under any circumstance.

    NASA does not anticipate opposition to the changes or significant adverse comments. However, if the Agency receives significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    II. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    Publication of proposed regulations, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or from, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it makes nonsubstantive changes to Agency regulations. The rule merely removes from the NFS policy and an associated clause that are outdated.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Executive Order 13371

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant NFS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 and therefore does not require publication for public comment.

    VI. 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).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1827 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Geoffrey Sage, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1827 and 1852 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 1827 and 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 1827—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS
    1827.409 [Amended]
    2. Remove and reserve 1827.409(i). PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    1852.227-17 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve 1852.227-17.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13464 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1843 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE44 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Removal of Reference to the Shared Savings Policy and Associated Clause (NFS Case 2018-N008) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NASA is issuing a final rule to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Supplement (NFS) to remove reference to the Shared Savings policy and associated clause.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 21, 2018. Comments due on or before July 23, 2018. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2018-N008, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “NFS Case 2018-N008”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “NFS Case 2018-N008”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “NFS Case 2018-N008” on any uploaded files.”

    Email: [email protected] Include “NFS Case 2018-N008” in the subject line of the message.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marilyn J. Seppi, NASA Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Suite 5H35, 300 E. Street SW, Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone 202-358-0447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    NFS subpart 1843.71, Shared Savings, and associated clause 1852.243-71, Shared Savings, were added to the NFS in 1997. The intent of the clause was to provide an incentive for contractors to identify and implement significant cost reduction programs. In return, they would be eligible for a share of the realized savings which resulted from those cost-cutting projects once they were approved by the contracting officer. Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, NASA is continually reviewing existing regulations with the objective of reducing or removing any unnecessary, outdated and burdensome requirements that have outlived their intended purpose, NFS 1843.71, Shared Savings, and associated clause 1852.243-71, Shared Savings were reviewed and recommended for removal from the NFS since they are duplicative of the FAR part 48, Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) program and associated clauses implemented under OMB Circular A-131, Value Engineering. The FAR VECP clauses provide the same incentive to contactors as the NFS Shared Savings clause.

    NASA does not anticipate opposition to the changes or significant adverse comments. However, if the Agency receives significant adverse comment, it will withdraw this final rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    II. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    Publication of proposed regulations, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it makes nonsubstantive changes to Agency regulations that has minimal impact on contractors or offerors as there are value engineering proposal clauses prescribed in FAR part 48 that may be utilized in lieu of the NFS clause. The rule merely removes from the NFS policy and an associated clause that is outdated and redundant to policy that is already provided for in the FAR.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Executive Order 13371

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant NFS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 and therefore does not require publication for public comment.

    VI. 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).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1843 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Geoffrey Sage, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1843 and 1852 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 1843 and 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 1843—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS Subpart 1843.71 [Removed] 2. Remove subpart 1843.71, consisting of sections 1843.7101 and 1843.7102. PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    1852.243-71 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve 1852.243-71.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13463 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 170627600-8521-02] RIN 0648-BG99 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Mutton Snapper and Gag Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues regulations to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule revises the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limits, the recreational bag limit, and the stock annual catch limit (ACL). In addition, this final rule revises the gag commercial minimum size limit. The purposes of this final rule are to reduce harvest of mutton snapper to prevent overfishing while also achieving optimum yield (OY), and streamline management measures to help increase compliance with the fishing regulations for mutton snapper and gag in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf off Florida.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the framework action, which includes an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2017/mutton_gag/mutton_gag_index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rich Malinowski, NMFS SERO, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf reef fish fishery includes mutton snapper and gag and is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Steven Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.).

    On February 15, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule for the framework action and requested public comment (83 FR 6830). The proposed rule and framework action outlined the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the framework action and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    For mutton snapper, this final rule revises the stock ACL (given in round weight), the commercial and recreational minimum size limits, and the recreational bag limit. This final rule also revises the gag commercial minimum size limit.

    Mutton Snapper Stock ACL

    This final rule sets the Gulf mutton snapper stock ACL at 134,424 lb (60,974 kg) for the 2018 fishing year, 139,392 lb (63,227 kg) for the 2019 fishing year, and 143,694 lb (65,179 kg) for the 2020 fishing year and subsequent fishing years. The ACLs are consistent with the current apportionment between the Gulf and South Atlantic and are equal to the Gulf's portion of the acceptable biological catch recommended by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    Mutton Snapper Recreational Bag Limit

    This final rule reduces the recreational bag limit applicable to the Gulf EEZ to 5 mutton snapper per person per day within the 10-snapper aggregate bag limit to be consistent with the Florida state bag limit and South Atlantic EEZ bag limit. NMFS and the Council expect consistent mutton snapper recreational bag limits across the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZs and Florida state waters to improve regulatory compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement.

    Mutton Snapper Minimum Size Limit

    This final rule revises the mutton snapper commercial and recreational minimum size limits to 18 inches (45.7 cm), total length (TL), in the Gulf EEZ to be consistent with the state of Florida and South Atlantic EEZ minimum size limits. As with the change to the recreational bag limit, this revision increases regulatory consistency to improve compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement.

    Because more than 95 percent of mutton snapper landings from the Gulf are from the commercial sector and 95 percent of the commercially landed mutton snapper are larger than 20 inches (50.8 cm), NMFS expects little effect on the spawning population and harvest rates as a result of this change.

    Gag Commercial Minimum Size Limit

    This final rule increases the Gulf gag commercial minimum size limit to 24 inches (60.9 cm), TL, to make the commercial minimum size limit consistent with the Gulf EEZ recreational minimum size limit, as well as consistent with the South Atlantic EEZ and state of Florida commercial and recreational size limits. Over 98 percent of Gulf commercial gag landings come from waters adjacent to Florida and 94.5 percent of commercially harvested gag in the Gulf waters are at least 24 inches. Therefore, NMFS and the Council expect increasing the commercial minimum size limit to improve compliance and decrease the burden for law enforcement by increasing regulatory consistency, but do not expect an increase in regulatory discards of gag.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received three comments related to the proposed rule for the framework action. These comments either agreed with the proposed changes or suggested additional modifications to management measures such as prohibiting commercial harvest of gag or modifying the recreational closed seasons, which were beyond the scope of the proposed rule. No changes were made to this final rule based on public comment.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator for the NMFS Southeast Region has determined that this final rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    In compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility ACT (RFA), NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The FRFA follows.

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. A description of the final rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this final rule are contained in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of the preamble. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule. Accordingly, this final rule does not implicate the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    No public comments were received relating to the socio-economic implications and potential impacts on small business entities, therefore no changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. No comments were received from the Office of Advocacy for the Small Business Administration.

    NMFS agrees that the Gulf Council's preferred alternatives will best achieve their objectives for the framework action while minimizing, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects on fishers, support industries, and associated communities.

    NMFS expects this final rule to directly affect all commercial vessels that harvest Gulf mutton snapper and/or gag under the FMP. Changes to ACLs, recreational minimum size limits, or recreational bag limits in this framework and final rule will not directly apply to or regulate charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) businesses. Any impact to the profitability or competitiveness of for-hire fishing businesses will be the result of changes in for-hire angler demand and will therefore be indirect in nature. The RFA does not consider recreational anglers, who will be directly affected by this final rule, to be small entities, so they are outside the scope of this analysis and only the effects on commercial vessels were analyzed. For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    As of April 5, 2018, there were 842 vessels with valid or renewable Federal Gulf reef fish commercial vessel permits. From 2010 through 2015, an average of 119 vessels per year landed mutton snapper in state and Federal waters of the Gulf. These vessels, combined, averaged 429 trips per year in the Gulf on which mutton snapper were landed and 1,594 other trips taken in the Gulf on which no mutton snapper were landed or were taken in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) was approximately $0.22 million from mutton snapper, approximately $4.34 million from other species co-harvested with mutton snapper (on the same trips), and approximately $12.10 million from other trips by these vessels in the Gulf on which no mutton snapper were harvested or occurred in the South Atlantic. Total average annual revenue from all species harvested by vessels harvesting mutton snapper in the Gulf was approximately $16.66 million, or approximately $138,764 per vessel. For the same period, an average of 375 vessels per year landed gag in the Gulf. These vessels, combined, averaged 2,936 trips per year in the Gulf, on which gag were landed and 2,416 trips taken either in the Gulf on which gag were not harvested or trips taken in the South Atlantic. The average annual total dockside revenue (2015 dollars) for these 375 vessels was approximately $2.39 million from gag, approximately $25.32 million from other species co-harvested with gag (on the same trips in the Gulf), and approximately $17.06 million from the other trips taken by these vessels. The total average annual revenue from all species harvested by these 375 vessels was approximately $44.77 million, or approximately $120,238 per vessel. Based on the foregoing revenue information, all commercial vessels affected by the final rule may be assumed to be small entities.

    Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this final rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities; however, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus large entities does not arise in the present case.

    Relevant to commercial vessels, the final rule modifies the 2018-2020, and subsequent years', ACLs for the Gulf apportionment of mutton snapper; increases the minimum size limit for commercial mutton snapper in the Gulf to 18 inches (45.7 cm) TL; and, increases the commercial minimum size limit for gag in the Gulf to 24 inches (60.9 cm) TL.

    Modifying the ACLs for mutton snapper will result in ACL reductions each year from 2018 through 2020. Vessel revenue reductions corresponding to these reduced ACLs will be approximately $166,000 in 2018, $154,000 in 2019, and $143,000 in 2020, or an annual average of approximately $160,000 for the four-year period. If distributed equally among the 119 vessels, average annual revenue loss will be approximately $1,350 per vessel. This annual revenue loss per vessel will be approximately 1 percent of average per vessel revenues from all species.

    Increasing the Gulf mutton snapper minimum size limit from 16 inches (40.6 cm), TL, to 18 inches (45.7 cm), TL, affects approximately 0.2 percent of commercial landings, or approximately $495 annually in total vessel revenues. This revenue reduction is minimal, and it is also unlikely to be in addition to the estimated revenue losses from the reductions in ACLs, because NMFS expects fishermen to catch the full amount of the ACLs even with an increase in the minimum size limit for mutton snapper.

    Increasing the commercial gag minimum size limit in the Gulf from 22 inches (55.8 cm), TL, to 24 inches (60.9 cm), TL, could potentially reduce commercial gag landings by 12,207 lb (5,537 kg) annually, or approximately $61,890 in total vessel revenues. These landings and revenue loss, however, appear unlikely because gag are managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program, and IFQ participants will likely adjust their trip level catch composition throughout the year or sell a portion of their annual gag allocation to other fishers, rather than suffer a loss in revenues.

    The following discussion analyzes the alternatives that were considered by the Council, including those that were not selected as preferred by the Council.

    Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative described in this final rule, were considered for establishing ACLs for Gulf mutton snapper. The first alternative, the no-action alternative, would maintain the current economic benefits to all participants in the mutton snapper component of the reef fish fishery. This alternative, however, would be inconsistent with the best scientific information available and would allow more harvest than is recommended by the SSCs based on the most recent stock assessment.

    The second alternative, which is the preferred alternative, includes two options, one of which is the preferred option. The non-preferred option would apply the Gulf's ACL/annual catch target (ACT) control rule, with the resultant ACT being 12 percent less than the ACL. Because the ACT is not currently used for management purposes, the economic effects of this option would be the same as that of the preferred option.

    The third alternative would establish ACLs that would be lower than the ACLs in the preferred alternative, and thus would be expected to result in larger revenue losses than the preferred alternative.

    Three alternatives, one of which includes the preferred alternative described in this final rule, were considered for modifying the mutton snapper minimum size limit. The first alternative, the no-action alternative, would maintain the 16-inch (40.6 cm), TL, minimum size limit for commercial and recreational mutton snapper, and thus would not be expected to change the economic benefits from fishing for mutton snapper. However, this alternative would not achieve one of the stated goals of changing the minimum size limit, which is to establish consistent size limit regulations between the Gulf EEZ, the South Atlantic EEZ, and Florida state waters.

    The second alternative would increase the minimum size limit for commercial and recreational mutton snapper to 20 inches (50.8 cm), TL. This alternative would be expected to result in larger revenue reductions to commercial vessels than the preferred alternative.

    Two alternatives, including the preferred alternative described in this final rule, were considered for modifying the commercial gag minimum size limit. The only alternative to the preferred action is the no-action alternative which would retain the 22-inch (55.8 cm), TL, minimum size limit for gag. However, this alternative would not establish consistent size limit regulations between the Gulf EEZ, the South Atlantic EEZ, and Florida state waters. Furthermore, although the preferred alternative is expected to reduce vessel revenues by approximately $61,890 relative to the no-action alternative, as previously noted, such revenue reduction is deemed unlikely under an IFQ program.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gag, Gulf of Mexico, Mutton snapper, Recreational, Reef fish.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.37, revise paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 622.37 Size limits.

    (a) * * *

    (5) Mutton snapper—18 inches (45.7 cm), TL.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Gag—24 inches (61.0 cm), TL.

    3. In § 622.38, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 622.38 Bag and possession limits.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Snappers, combined, excluding red, lane, and vermilion snapper—10. In addition, within the 10-fish aggregate snapper bag limit, no more than 5 fish may be mutton snapper.

    4. In § 622.41, revise the last sentence of paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    (o) * * * The stock ACL for mutton snapper, in round weight, is 134,424 lb (60,974 kg) for 2018, 139,392 lb (63,227 kg) for 2019, and 143,694 lb (65,179 kg) for 2020 and subsequent fishing years.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13401 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 170630611-8525-02] RIN 0648-BH01 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Regions; Regulatory Amendment 4 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and South Atlantic (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This final rule increases the annual catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster based on updated landings information and revised scientific recommendations. This final rule also prohibits the use of traps for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The purposes of this final rule are to ensure catch levels for spiny lobster are based on the best scientific information available, to prevent overfishing, and to minimize potential negative effects of traps on habitat and protected species interactions in the South Atlantic EEZ.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Regulatory Amendment 4, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory flexibility analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/spiny_lobster/A4_lobster_acl/a4_lobster_acl_index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf and the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

    On February 2, 2018, NMFS published a proposed rule for Regulatory Amendment 4 in the Federal Register and requested public comment (83 FR 4890). Regulatory Amendment 4 and the proposed rule outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in Regulatory Amendment 4 and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measures Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule modifies the stock ACL and annual catch target (ACT) for spiny lobster and prohibits the use of traps for the recreational harvest of spiny lobster in the South Atlantic EEZ.

    Stock ACL and ACT

    This final rule revises the stock ACL and ACT based on the new acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendation provided by the Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs). This final rule sets the ACL equal to the recommended ABC of 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg), which is based on the mean landings from the years 1991/1992-2015/2016 plus 1.5 standard deviations. This final rule sets the ACT at 8.64 million lb (3.92 million kg), which is 90 percent of the ACL. As established in Amendment 10 to the FMP (Amendment 10), the optimum yield (OY) equals the ACT. NMFS does not expect the increase in the ACT and ACL to result in negative biological effects on the stock because current fishing effort is limited by several variables. These variables include the number of trap tags issued by the state of Florida, commercial and recreational bag and possession limits in the Gulf and South Atlantic EEZ, and the duration of the fishing season, which varies depending on the area where spiny lobsters are harvested.

    Recreational Harvest of Spiny Lobster Using Traps in the South Atlantic EEZ

    This final rule prohibits the use of traps for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in all of the South Atlantic EEZ.

    The Councils are concerned that using these traps for recreational harvest may become more popular and result in potential negative impacts on essential fish habitat and an increase in the use of vertical lines that may interact with protected species, for example, by creating entanglement issues, continuing to fish after a trap is lost, or creating bycatch.

    Measures in Regulatory Amendment 4 Not Codified Through This Final Rule

    As established in Amendment 10, the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxy and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT) are equal to the OFL, which was set at 7.9 million lb (3.58 million kg). Consistent with Amendment 10, Regulatory Amendment 4 would modify the MSY proxy and MFMT values, so that they are equal to the revised OFL of 10.46 million lb (4.74 million kg).

    Measures in This Final Rule Not Included in Regulatory Amendment 4

    In addition to implementing the measures associated with Regulatory Amendment 4, this final rule corrects regulatory language that was mistakenly included in the final rule implementing Amendment 10. This final rule changes 50 CFR 622.407(c) to remove the phrase “whichever is greater” and the first occurrence of a duplicative sentence. This final rule also makes a minor wording revision to more directly state that the total number of undersized spiny lobster allowed on-board a vessel is 50 plus 1 per trap.

    Comments and Responses

    A total of 14 comments were received on the proposed rule to implement Regulatory Amendment 4. Comments that were beyond the scope of the proposed rule and comments that agreed with the proposed actions are not responded to in this final rule. Other comments that relate to the actions contained in Regulatory Amendment 4 and the proposed rule are grouped as appropriate and summarized below, followed by NMFS' respective responses.

    Comment 1: The ACL for spiny lobster should not be increased. The ACL should remain at its current level for another 5 years to allow the spiny lobster populations to increase.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. The new ACL is consistent with a new ABC recommendation by the Councils' SSCs. The prior ABC recommendation was based on a time period when landings were historically low. The new ABC and the corresponding increase in the ACL are based on a longer time period (1991/1992 through 2015/2016) to better capture the dynamics of the fishery that are influenced by factors beyond spiny lobster biology and harvest, such as environmental, economic, and social conditions. As described in Regulatory Amendment 4, increasing the ACL is not expected to negatively affect the spiny lobster population because fishing effort is not expected to increase. Current fishing effort is limited by such measures as the number of commercial trap tags issued by the state of Florida, commercial and recreational bag and possession limits in the South Atlantic and Gulf EEZ, and the duration of the fishing seasons, which varies based on location. Further, maintaining the current ACL for 5 years would not necessarily allow for the spiny lobster populations to increase in U.S. waters. Spiny lobster is widely distributed throughout the western Atlantic Ocean from as far north as North Carolina to as far south as Brazil, including Bermuda, The Bahamas, Caribbean, and Central America. Genetic studies show that most larval recruits in U.S. waters are from elsewhere in the Caribbean, with only 10-40 percent locally spawned larvae retained in U.S. waters.

    Comment 2: The timeframe used to specify catch limits for spiny lobster should be continuously updated to incorporate periods of low and high landings, natural disasters such as hurricanes, and to allow for accurate estimates of the stock OFL and ABC.

    Response: NMFS agrees that is appropriate to reevaluate the ABC, which is used to set the catch limit, when relevant new information becomes available. That is what occurred through the process leading to up to the Council proposing Regulatory Amendment 4. As explained above, the current OFL and ABC for spiny lobster were established using the mean of the most recent 10 years of landings at that time (i.e., fishing years 2000/2001 through 2009/2010). The Councils' SSCs reevaluated this approach in 2016 in response to a recommendation from a review panel, which was convened as required by the accountability measures when landings exceeded the ACT. The SSCs agreed with the review panel's recommendation to use a longer time series of landings (i.e., fishing years 1991/1992 through 2015/2016) to re-specify the OFL and ABC for spiny lobster. This resulted in the increase in the ACL and ACT implemented through this final rule. Regulatory Amendment 4 also states that a review panel should be convened if there are 2 consecutive years of low landings (below 5.3 million lb). Thus, there are mechanisms in place to respond to changes in harvest and update the ACL as appropriate.

    Comment 3: The increase in spiny lobster ACL and prohibition of recreational harvest using traps will allow more commercial harvest of spiny lobster. This will have an economic impact on small business entities and therefore, as a result of increased commercial harvest, NMFS should prepare an initial regulatory flexibility act analysis (IRFA) to better address the economic impacts of these actions.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that it is necessary to prepare an IRFA. As stated in the Classification section of the proposed rule and again in this final rule, the increase in the ACL and ACT for spiny lobster will have no impact on small commercial fishing businesses because the AMs do not require a closure or otherwise limit commercial landings of spiny lobster taken from Federal waters if landings reach or exceed the ACL or ACT. Further, the majority of commercial harvest of spiny lobster occurs off Florida, and effort is limited by the number of trap tags issued by the state of Florida, commercial limits, and the length of the fishing season. Therefore, any reduction in the use of traps for recreational harvest is not expected to increase commercial harvest.

    Comment 4: NMFS should not prohibit the use of traps for recreational harvest in the EEZ off North Carolina. To avoid interaction of traps with whales, it would be better to close the recreational fishing season for spiny lobster in the EEZ off North Carolina during the whale migration period.

    Response: NMFS does not agree that a season restriction on the use of traps for recreational harvest is appropriate. Potential interactions between traps and protected species was one issue the Councils considered in deciding to prohibit the use of traps for recreational harvest in the EEZ off all of the South Atlantic states. However, the Councils were also concerned about bycatch and damage to habitat. Therefore, the Councils did not consider seasonal restrictions for recreational harvest of spiny lobster in RegulatoryAmendment 4.

    Comment 5: NMFS should allow the use of traps for recreational harvest in the EEZ off Florida to make current spiny lobster regulations consistent in the EEZ off all the states in the South Atlantic region. The proposed rule did not include any evidence that the recreational sector is harming the resource or its habitat as a result of trap use.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that consistency in the regulations related to recreational harvest by traps should be achieved by allowing the use of traps in the EEZ off Florida. Consistency was not the basis for the Councils' decision to prohibit the use of this gear. Although current recreational harvest using traps in the EEZ outside Florida is likely minimal, the Councils were concerned that there could be an increase in the use of recreational traps and associated negative impacts. As discussed in Regulatory Amendment 4, trap gear can negatively affect the bottom substrate, entangle protected species, and continue ghost fishing when the trap is lost. Because the majority of spiny lobster harvest occurs in the EEZ off Florida, opening this area to recreational traps would be expected to increase these negatives impacts. In addition, because spiny lobsters are larger in the EEZ off Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina than in Florida, traps in those areas would require larger mouths (entrances) that would likely increase bycatch. Recreational harvest is still permitted with dive and snorkel gears, which are the predominant gears used by the recreational sector, and these gears do not have the same impact on habitat and other species as traps do.

    Comment 6: Commercial harvest of spiny lobster has fluctuated, while recreational harvest, a small part of overall harvest, has remained consistent. In order to protect the resource, there should be restrictions on both the commercial and recreational sectors.

    Response: Restrictions are already in place for spiny lobster in place for both the commercial and recreational sectors, and this final rule will not remove these restrictions. Commercial and recreational bag and possession limits, and fishing seasons for spiny lobster are in place to control harvest. Any person who commercially fishes for and sells spiny lobster caught in either the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, except off Florida, must have a Federal spiny lobster vessel permit. Any person who commercially fishes for spiny lobster caught in the EEZ off Florida, or sells spiny lobster in Florida must have the permits and licenses required by Florida (http://www.myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/commercial/spiny-lobster/). There are also requirements related to gear and vessel identification, and trap construction.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule revises a reference to a boundary point coordinate for the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary in 50 CFR 622.55(c)(2)(iii), which incorrectly refers to paragraph (d)(1) rather than paragraph (c)(1).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with Regulatory Amendment 4, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

    One public comment (Comment 3) stated that the increase in commercial harvest would have an economic impact on small entities and therefore an IRFA analysis must be prepared. As stated in the Classification section of the proposed rule, although the rule would increase the ACL and ACT, there would be no impact on small commercial fishing businesses because there are no AMs that can either close the Federal season early or otherwise limit commercial landings of spiny lobster taken from Federal waters if landings reach or exceed the ACL or ACT.

    No changes were made to the final rule in response to public comments, and NMFS has not received any new information that would affect its previous determination. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none was prepared.

    The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries finds that with respect to the change to 50 CFR 622.55(c)(2)(iii) there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the provision has been subject to notice and comment and the revision corrects only a typographical error.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 640

    Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, South Atlantic, Spiny lobster, Trap.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 622 are amended as follows:

    PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Subpart R—Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 2. In § 600.725, in the table in paragraph (v), under heading “III. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council,” under entry 7, revise entry B pertaining to the “Recreational fishery” in the “Authorized gear types” column to read as follows:
    § 600.725 General prohibitions.

    (v) * * *

    Fishery Authorized gear types *         *         *         *         *         *         * III. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council *         *         *         *         *         *         * 7. South Atlantic Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP): *         *         *         *         *         *         * B. Recreational fishery B. Dip net, bully net, snare, hand harvest. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 3. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    4. In § 622.55, revise paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 622.55 Closed areas.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Effective from May 26 through July 31, each year, that part of the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary seaward of rhumb lines connecting the following points is open to trawling: From point F, as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, to point Q at 24°46.7′ N lat., 81°52.2′ W long. (on the line denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters); thence along the seaward limit of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 11439, to point U and north to point T, both points as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.

    5. In § 622.404, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 622.404 Prohibited gear and methods.

    (d) Except for black sea bass pots and golden crab traps as allowed in § 622.188 and § 622.248, respectively, the possession of all other traps is prohibited onboard a vessel in the South Atlantic EEZ when spiny lobster subject to the recreational bag and possession limits specified in § 622.408 is also onboard the vessel. The recreational harvest of spiny lobster using a trap is prohibited in the South Atlantic EEZ.

    6. In § 622.407, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 622.407 Minimum size limits and other harvest limitations.

    (c) Undersized attractants. A live spiny lobster under the minimum size limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that is harvested in the EEZ by a trap may be retained aboard the harvesting vessel for future use as an attractant in a trap provided it is held in a live well aboard the vessel. The live well must provide a minimum of 3/4 gallons (1.7 liters) of seawater per spiny lobster. An undersized spiny lobster so retained must be released to the water alive and unharmed immediately upon leaving the trap lines and prior to 1 hour after official sunset each day. No more than 50 undersized spiny lobsters plus 1 per trap aboard the vessel may be retained aboard for use as attractants.

    7. Revise § 622.411 to read as follows:
    § 622.411 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs).

    For recreational and commercial spiny lobster landings combined, the ACL is 9.60 million lb (4.35 million kg), whole weight. The ACT is 8.64 million lb, (3.92 million kg) whole weight.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13400 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 121 Friday, June 22, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029] Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Water-Source Heat Pumps AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is initiating a data collection process through this RFI to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedure for commercial water-source heat pumps (“WSHPs”). To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has gathered data, identifying several issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. The issues outlined in this document mainly concern: Methods that are incorporated by reference by the applicable industry standard; efficiency metrics and calculations; additional specifications for the test methods; and any additional topics that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking, including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the test procedure's accuracy. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested and will be accepted on or before July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029 in the subject line of the message.

    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Test Procedure RFI for Water-Source Heat Pumps, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

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

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

    The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0029. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Antonio Bouza, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4563. Email: [email protected]

    Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking History II. Request for Information A. Scope and Definitions B. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 1. Fan Energy Use 2. Integrated Efficiency Metrics C. Test Procedure 1. ISO 13256-1:1998 2. Potential for Harmonization With ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 3. Accounting for Compressor Heat When Testing Split Systems 4. Refrigerant Line Losses 5. Standardized Heat Capacity for Water 6. Discharge Coefficients for Airflow Measurement 7. Duct Loss Adjustments 8. Water Flow Rate 9. Indoor Air Measurements 10. Refrigerant Charging 11. Voltage D. Other Test Procedure Topics III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction

    WSHPs are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy efficiency standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) DOE's test procedure for WSHPs is prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) § 431.96. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test procedures for WSHPs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

    A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”),1 Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 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 small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which include the WSHPs that are the subject of this notice. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))

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

    2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of the Act include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).

    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))

    The DOE testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b))

    As discussed, WSHPs are a category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, “Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings” (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))

    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including WSHPs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

    B. Rulemaking History

    DOE sets forth the test procedure for WSHPs with a cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.96. The DOE test procedure currently incorporates by reference International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 13256-1 (1998), “Water-source heat pumps-Testing and rating for performance-Part 1: Water-to-air and brine-to-air heat pumps,” (ISO 13256-1:1998) and includes additional provisions for equipment set-up at 10 CFR 431.96(e). Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 provides specifications for addressing key information typically found in the installation and operation manuals.

    DOE initially incorporated ISO 13256-1:1998 as the referenced test procedure for WSHPs on October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61962), and DOE last reviewed the test procedure for WSHPs as part of a final rule for test procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps published on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28928). Since then, the relevant industry standards have undergone a reevaluation process which did not result in substantive changes to the referenced standards. (See section II.C.1 of this RFI for a more complete explanation of the industry update process.) Because these actions by the relevant industry standard-setting bodies contained no substantive changes to the industry standard already incorporated by reference, DOE has tentatively concluded that the statutory trigger provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) do not provide a basis for DOE to review its WSHP test procedure at this time. Therefore, if DOE determines, based upon its assessment of the information submitted in response to this RFI, that a rulemaking is necessary for a reevaluation of the WSHP test procedure, DOE would conduct such review under EPCA's 7-year-lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

    II. Request for Information

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

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

    A. Scope and Definition

    This RFI covers WSHPs, which DOE defines at 10 CFR 431.92, as a single-phase or three-phase reverse-cycle heat pump that uses a circulating water loop as the heat source for heating and as the heat sink for cooling. The main components are a compressor, refrigerant-to-water heat exchanger, refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger, refrigerant expansion devices, refrigerant reversing valve, and indoor fan. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, water-to-air water-loop heat pumps.

    DOE notes that while the current Federal test procedure and energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.96 and 431.97 apply only to those WSHPs with a rated cooling capacity below 135,000 Btu/h (i.e., within the covered equipment type of small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)), WSHPs also meet the definitions of the covered equipment types large and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A), (C)-(D)) DOE understands that the market for WSHPs greater than 135,000 Btu/h may be limited, but DOE has identified some models on the market in the larger capacity range. Therefore, DOE may consider expanding the scope of the WSHP TP to include WSHPs with cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h.

    Issue 1: DOE seeks data on the size of the market for WSHPs with a cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h. DOE also requests comment on whether there are any limitations, not otherwise captured in this RFI, associated with testing WSHPs in this large and very large capacity range.

    B. Energy Efficiency Descriptor

    For WSHPs, the cooling metric currently specified by DOE is the energy efficiency ratio (EER). 10 CFR 431.96. EER is the ratio of the produced cooling effect of the WSHP to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour, and measured at standard rating conditions. The heating mode metric currently specified by DOE for WSHPs is the coefficient of performance (COP). Id. COP is the ratio of the produced heating effect of the WSHP to its network input, when both are expressed in identical units of measurement, and measured at standard rating conditions.

    1. Fan Energy Use

    DOE is aware that the energy use of field-installed fans will vary based on the use of the fan for various functions (e.g., economizing, ventilation, filtration, and auxiliary heat). Consequently, DOE is investigating whether changes to the WSHP test procedure are needed to properly characterize a representative average use cycle, including changes to more accurately represent fan energy use in field applications. DOE also seeks comment on any anticipated burdens associated with such potential changes to the WSHPs test procedure. DOE also requests information as to the extent that accounting for the energy use of fans in commercial equipment such as WSHPs would be additive of other existing accounting of fan energy use. DOE also seeks information as to whether accounting for the energy use of fan operation in WSHPs would alter measured efficiency, and if so, to what extent.

    Issue 2: DOE requests data and information regarding what form(s) of auxiliary heating are installed in WSHPs, how frequently they operate, and whether they operate independently of the WSHP. Additionally, DOE requests data and information on how frequently WSHP supply fans are operated when there is no demand for heating or cooling (i.e., for fresh air ventilation or air circulation/filtration).

    Issue 3: DOE requests data and information on the typical operating schedules or duty cycles for WSHP supply fans when there is no demand for heating or cooling. DOE also seeks comment and information regarding the use of the indoor supply fan of WSHPs for any ancillary functions not mentioned above.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 uses a fan power adjustment calculation to exclude fan power used for overcoming external resistance on ducted equipment. As a result, the calculation of efficiency only includes the fan power required to overcome the internal resistance of the unit. Similarly, only liquid pump power required to overcome the internal resistance of the unit is included in the effective power input used for efficiency calculation for WSHPs.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 does not provide minimum external static pressure (ESP) requirements for ducted equipment; however, Table 9 of ISO 13256-1:1998 includes an operating tolerance (i.e., maximum variation of individual reading from rating conditions) and a condition tolerance (i.e., maximum variation of arithmetical average values from specified test conditions) for external resistance to airflow. ISO 13256-1:1998 does not specify to which values of ESP these tolerances are intended to apply.

    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on whether the test procedure for WSHPs should include minimum ESP requirements for the indoor fan, and if so, what values would be representative of field installations. DOE seeks information on whether field ESP values typically vary with capacity, and whether fan power used for overcoming ESP should be included in the efficiency calculation for WSHPs intended to be used with ducting. Similarly, DOE seeks information on what ESP values are typical in field installations for the liquid pump and whether any allowance for external liquid pressure drop should be considered in the efficiency metric.

    DOE is aware that some WSHPs may be installed with or without indoor air distribution ducts in the field. Depending on the type of installation, the test method specified in ISO 13256-1:1998 differs; section 4.1.2 of ISO 13256-1:1998 specifies provisions for WSHPs installed without ducts, and section 4.1.3 of that standard specifies provisions for WSHPs installed with ducts. DOE's preliminary research has not revealed any physical characteristics of WSHPs that distinguish them as being suitable for installation with ducts, without ducts, or both. ISO 13256-1:1998 does not specify how to determine whether a WSHP is to be tested using the ducted or non-ducted provisions.

    Issue 5: DOE requests comment on what, if any, physical characteristics distinguish WSHPs that are suitable for installation with ducts from those suitable for installation without ducts. DOE also requests comment on whether any WSHP models can be installed either with or without indoor air distribution ducts. If models exist that can be installed both with or without ducts, DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers test such models using the provisions of section 4.1.2 of ISO 13256-1:1998, which is for heat pumps without duct connection, or using the provisions of section 4.1.3 of that standard for heat pumps with duct connection, or test such models using both provisions of sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 provides requirements for airflow rates in section 4.1.5, including that: (a) Non-ducted heat pumps shall be tested at airflow rates obtained at zero ESP; (b) ducted heat pumps with internal fans or with designated air movers be tested at the airflow rates obtained at zero ESP or the manufacturer-specified airflow rate, whichever is lower, and (c) ducted heat pumps without internal fans shall be tested at the manufacturer-specified airflow rate subject to a maximum internal pressure drop. Additionally, paragraph (e)(2) of 10 CFR 431.96 requires that the airflow rate used for testing must be specified by the manufacturer in the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the commercial customer. ISO 13256-1:1998 does not indicate what speed setting should be used to achieve specified airflow for a fan with more than one speed setting. Also, in some cases, the airflow rate and pressure conditions specified by ISO 13256-1:1998 for a given ducted heat pump without an internal fan may not be achievable simultaneously. For example, the manufacturer-specified airflow may not be achievable below the maximum internal pressure drop specified in section 4.1.5.3 of ISO 13256-1:1998. ISO 13256-1:1998 does not provide an approach for simultaneously achieving the specified airflow rate and pressure conditions for such a case.

    Issue 6: DOE requests comment on whether WSHP indoor fans typically have multiple speed settings, and if so, how manufacturers decide which speed setting to use during testing. Further, DOE requests comment on how the specified airflow is achieved during testing if none of the speed settings available with the indoor fan produce the specified airflow at the specified internal or external static pressure (when applicable).

    ISO 13256-1:1998 uses a fan efficiency value of 0.3 × 103 Pascal-liters per second per watt to calculate the fan power associated with internal or external airflow resistance (see sections 4.1.3.1 and 4.1.3.2 of that test standard, respectively). However, DOE recognizes that fan and motor technology is evolving, including associated improvements in efficiency. Consequently, the fan efficiency value used in ISO 13256-1:1998 may not be reflective of these improvements for WSHPs that include an integral fan/motor that is based on new, more-efficient technology. On the other hand, DOE notes that for other air-conditioners and heat pumps (e.g., central air-conditioners), indoor units that do not include integrated fans (i.e., coil-only units) are often installed with an existing, external fan that is part of a furnace. The furnace is not always replaced when the new indoor unit is installed. In these cases, the efficiency of the external fan (i.e., the furnace fan) reflects performance of past fan technology. This scenario may or may not be relevant for WSHPs.

    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment and data on whether the fan/motor efficiency factor used in the calculation of fan power for WSHPs is representative of units currently on the market and whether the value accurately represents the efficiency of existing fans that are not replaced in WSHP installations. DOE also requests comment on whether indoor fans are typically replaced when coil-only WSHPs are installed. DOE also seeks comment regarding potential test approaches that might lead to more direct representation of efficiency of the fan/motor combination under test instead of relying on a single factor for all units.

    DOE notes that all of the issues considered in this section address potential changes to the test procedure for WSHPs that could be reflected in the cooling and/or heating efficiency metrics (i.e., EER or integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER; see section II.B.2), and COP) for WSHPs in order to make them more representative of the energy contributions of all operating modes. This approach would not regulate the fans separately from the end-use equipment (i.e., the WSHP).

    Issue 8: Assuming DOE has authority to address fans embedded in other commercial equipment such as WSHPs (a conclusion the agency has not yet reached), DOE is interested in receiving comment and other information on this topic. DOE requests comment on whether any of the issues considered in this section would result in double-regulation of the energy use of fans in WSHPs, and if so, how. DOE further seeks comment as to whether or what portion of such fan operation is part of a “representative average use cycle” of a WSHP. DOE also seeks comment as to whether accounting for the energy use of fan operation in WSHPs would alter measured efficiency, and if so, to what extent.

    2. Integrated Efficiency Metrics

    DOE's test procedure for WSHPs does not include part-load conditions nor a seasonal metric that includes part-load performance. A seasonal metric is a weighted average of the performance of cooling or heating systems at different rating points intended to represent average efficiency over a full cooling or heating season. Several categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment are rated using a seasonal metric, such as the IEER for air cooled commercial unitary air conditioners as discussed in section 6.2 of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, “2015 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,” (“AHRI 340/360-2015”). IEER is a weighted average of efficiency at the four load levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of full-load capacity, each measured at an outdoor air condition representative of field operation at the given load level.

    Issue 9: DOE requests information on whether a seasonal efficiency metric that incorporates part-load performance would be appropriate for WSHPs. DOE also requests input on the specific details of a seasonal energy efficiency metric that would best represent the average cooling seasonal efficiency of WSHPs, including specification of test conditions.

    C. Test Procedure 1. ISO 13256-1:1998

    At this time, ISO 13256-1:1998 is still the most current industry standard relevant to water-source heat pumps. In 2012, AHRI and ASHRAE reaffirmed ISO 13256-1:1998, and published a version denoted as ISO 13256-1:1998 (RA 2012). DOE tentatively determined that there are no changes to ISO 13256-1:1998 in the reaffirmed 2012 version. ISO 13256-1:1998 is also referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as the test procedure for testing and rating WSHPs. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was updated on October 26, 2016, and this update references the reaffirmed version of ISO 13256-1:1998 that DOE tentatively determined contains no changes from the version of ISO 13256-1:1998 referenced in the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Because neither of these actions by the relevant industry standard-setting bodies contained substantive changes to the industry standards already incorporated by reference, DOE has tentatively concluded that the statutory trigger provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) do not require DOE to review its WSHP test procedure at this time. Instead, if DOE determines, based upon its assessment of the information submitted in response to the RFI, that a rulemaking is necessary for a reevaluation of the WSHP test procedure, DOE would conduct such review under EPCA's 7-year-lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

    2. Potential for Harmonization With ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009

    The test method used in ISO 13256-1:1998 is similar to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASHRAE 37-2009, “Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009). ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 is the method referenced by the 2007 and 2015 versions of AHRI 340/360, “Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (AHRI 340/360). The 2015 version of AHRI 340/360 is referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for testing water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (WCUACs). DOE is considering whether using the same method of test for WSHPs and WCUACs is appropriate, given the similarities in the design of WSHPs and WCUACs.

    Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on whether a single test method could be used for both WSHPs and WCUACs. DOE also seeks comment on any aspects of design, installation, and application of WSHPs that would make the use of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 infeasible for WSHPs.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 determines total cooling and heating capacities by averaging the results obtained using two test methods: The liquid enthalpy test method for the liquid side tests and the indoor air enthalpy test method for the air side tests. For non-ducted equipment, ISO 13256-1:1998 includes an option for conducting the air-side tests using the calorimeter room test method instead of the air enthalpy test method. The test standard also specifies that, for a test to be valid, the results obtained by the two methods used must agree within 5 percent. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 requires two capacity measurements as well (i.e., for units with cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h); the first method of measurement (i.e., the primary method) is used as the determination of the unit's capacity, while the second measurement (i.e., the secondary method) is used to confirm rather than to be averaged with the primary measurement.

    Issue 11: DOE requests information on whether one of the two capacity measurements prescribed in ISO 13256-1:1998 consistently gives a higher or lower result than the other or whether one of the methods can be considered more accurate for a range of different WSHP configurations and models. In addition, DOE requests comment on whether the ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 approach for determination of rated capacity (i.e., using the primary method's measurement as the rated capacity rather than averaging the two capacity measurements) would result in more representative ratings than the ISO 13256-1:1998 approach.

    3. Accounting for Compressor Heat When Testing Split Systems

    DOE has identified split-system WSHPs available on the market. For at least one of these split-system WSHP, the unit containing the compressor is intended for either indoor or outdoor installation. Where the compressor is installed in relation to the conditioned space and other system components impacts the capacity of the WSHP system and the provisions necessary for accurately measuring system capacity. DOE is considering whether the test procedure needs to provide additional specifications for split systems in order to properly account for compressor heat during testing of such WSHPs.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 requires use of two methods to measure space-conditioning capacity provided by a WSHP. One of these methods, the indoor air enthalpy method (see normative annex B of ISO 13256-1:1998), measures capacity directly by measuring mass flow and enthalpy change of the indoor air.3 The second method, the liquid enthalpy test method (see normative annex C of ISO 13256-1:1998), measures heat transferred at the liquid coil. This measurement is adjusted by adding or subtracting the total unit input power (including the compressor input power) from the measured liquid side capacity in the heating or cooling mode tests, respectively, using the equations in normative annex C of ISO 13256-1:1998. This adjustment assumes that all compressor heat is absorbed and ultimately transferred to the conditioned space, increasing heating capacity or decreasing cooling capacity. This ignores any heat transferred from the components (e.g., pump, fan, compressor, controls) to their surroundings that does not contribute to space conditioning. ISO 13256-1:1998 may not accurately account for component losses (in the form of heat) for the indoor air enthalpy method either. The indoor air enthalpy method does not appear to capture any impacts of the heat transferred by the components if the equipment or the test facility are not designed or set up to ensure the heat is captured.

    3 The alternative calorimeter room test method (see normative annex E of ISO 13256-1:1998), allowed to be used instead of the indoor air enthalpy method for ductless WSHPs, also measures indoor space-conditioning capacity directly.

    For testing of single-package WSHPs, ISO 13256-1:1998 provides specific instructions to ensure that all energy flows (including heat transfer) are accounted for appropriately. Specifically, section F7.5 of ISO 13256-1:1998 indicates that an enclosure as shown in Figure F-3 should be used when the compressor is in the indoor section and separately ventilated (i.e., air that absorbs compressor heat would not combine with supply air, which is used to measure capacity). Figure F-3 shows an insulated enclosure surrounding the indoor unit that ensures that separately-ventilated compressor air recombines with supply air to be included in capacity measurements. Hence, the heat rejected from the compressor shell is accounted for in the indoor air enthalpy method measurement. This test arrangement also reflects field performance of the WSHP because any compressor heat rejected to the indoors will heat the space, reducing cooling capacity and increasing heating capacity. For WSHPs where the compressor is in the indoor section but not separately ventilated, the air that absorbs compressor heat combines with supply air and is accounted for in the indoor air enthalpy capacity measurements without the need for the enclosure in Figure F-3.

    As discussed previously, for split-system WSHPs with the compressor in the liquid coil section, some of the compressor heat may be transferred to the ambient air surrounding the compressor/coil section and, therefore, may not be captured in the space-conditioning measurement. Under ISO 13256-1:1998, if a separate compressor/liquid coil section is placed in the indoor room (as shown in Figure F-1 of ISO 13256-1:1998), the compressor heat would not be captured by the indoor air enthalpy method, even though it does add heat to the indoor room. For a split-system WSHP for which the compressor/liquid coil section is always installed indoors, this issue might be remedied by using an arrangement similar to Figure F-3 and installing both the compressor/liquid coil section and the indoor air section (i.e., the section that includes the air-to-refrigerant coil) in the insulated enclosure, so that any heat associated with compressor cooling contributes to warming of the indoor air.

    In contrast, for a split-system WSHP for which the compressor/liquid coil section is always installed outdoors, the air that absorbs compressor heat would not directly affect the conditioned space. For such a case, the arrangement of Figure F-1 of the test standard and avoiding adjustments that assume that the compressor heat that is absorbed by outdoor air is combined with supply air would be appropriate. However, for such a case, ambient temperature conditions surrounding the outdoor section in field installations would likely be warmer than the indoor conditions specified in ISO 13256-1:1998 (or cooler than indoor conditions when operating in heating mode), which might affect system performance in a different way. In addition, adding or subtracting the entire compressor input power to or from the capacity calculated based on liquid temperature change likely overestimates the impact of compressor power input on the indoor-side capacity that is calculated using the liquid enthalpy-based method. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 also includes a capacity measurement method for systems with outdoor coils that reject or absorb heat from a flowing liquid. However, this “outdoor liquid coil method” may not be used if the compressor is cooled (ventilated) by outdoor air (see ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, table 1 and section 7.6.1.2). This restriction applies because determination of cooling or heating capacity for a system with outdoor-air cooling of the compressor requires accounting for the compressor heat transferred to the outdoor air, the measurement of which is not specified in the outdoor liquid coil method. In contrast, ISO 13256-1:1998 does not include any restrictions on use of the liquid enthalpy test method—in fact, it is required for testing all WSHPs. The approach may have to be modified to be suitable for split-system WSHPs for which the compressor is housed in a section located outdoors.

    Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on whether there are split-system WSHPs on the market for which the unit containing the compressor is intended only for outdoor installation or only for indoor installation (or whether all such units can be used for either indoor or outdoor installation). DOE also seeks information regarding manufacturers' practices for testing split-system WSHPs for which the compressor is not housed in the section containing the indoor refrigerant-to-air coil. First, for units in which the compressor section is to be installed outdoors, DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers test these units using “outdoor” rooms for the outdoor section, and, if so, what outdoor room conditions are used for the test. Second, for testing systems for which the compressor section is to be installed indoors, DOE seeks comment regarding what provisions are adopted during testing to properly account for the compressor heat. For both situations, DOE also seeks comment on whether any adjustments are made to the capacity equations in order to properly account for the compressor heat.

    4. Refrigerant Line Losses

    Split-system WSHPs have refrigerant lines that can transfer heat to and from their surroundings, which can incrementally affect measured capacity. ISO 13256-1:1998 indicates, for both the indoor air enthalpy test method (annex B) and the liquid enthalpy test method (annex C), in sections B4.2 and C3.3 of the industry standard, that if line loss corrections are to be made, they shall be included in the capacity calculations. DOE believes that these procedures may benefit from additional specificity, specifically regarding what circumstances require line loss corrections and what method to use to determine an appropriate correction.

    DOE notes that sections 7.3.3.4 and 7.3.4.4 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 prescribe methods for calculating and including line losses for both heating and cooling capacity calculations in the outdoor air enthalpy method, in order to obtain an energy balance with results from the indoor air enthalpy method; these procedures and calculations are for air-cooled split systems in which the “outdoor unit” is generally located outdoors. In contrast, the “outdoor unit” for a split-system WSHP (i.e., the section that contains the liquid/refrigerant heat exchanger) could be located either outdoors or indoors. Similar to the issue of accounting for compressor heat (as discussed in section II.C.3), for a split-system WSHP for which the compressor/liquid coil section is always installed indoors, the impacts of refrigerant line losses on capacity could be captured by using the arrangement of Figure F-3 in Annex F of ISO 13256-1:1998 and installing the compressor/liquid coil section in the insulated enclosure, so that any heat transfer from the refrigerant lines to the surrounding air contribute to warming or cooling of the indoor air. When such a system is tested in this fashion, line loss calculations may not be needed. However, there may be test scenarios for which line loss calculations are needed.

    Issue 13: DOE requests comment on whether the methods prescribed in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 for calculating line losses are appropriate for WSHPs. In addition, DOE requests comment on what modification might be made to the procedure in ISO 13256-1:1998 in order to address further refrigerant line losses—specifically, what test situations require their use in the capacity calculations, and which do not. DOE also requests comment on how manufacturers of split-system WSHPs currently incorporate line loss adjustments into both heating and cooling capacity calculations. Further, DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers of split-system WSHPs use test set-ups that capture the effects of refrigerant line losses in capacity measurements (e.g., installing both the indoor coil and liquid coil sections of the split-system WSHP within an insulated enclosure).

    5. Standardized Heat Capacity for Water

    For the liquid enthalpy test method in annex C of ISO 13256-1:1998, the variables used to calculate the heating and cooling capacity include liquid mass flow rate, specific heat capacity of the liquid, liquid temperatures entering and leaving the unit, and total unit power. The test standard requires the use of water as the liquid medium when testing water-loop heat pumps; however, no value or method for calculating the specific heat capacity of water is provided. Specification of a standard value or calculation method for the specific heat capacity of water may improve the repeatability of the WSHP test procedure.

    Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on whether a standard value or calculation method for the specific heat capacity of water should be specified in the WSHP test procedure for calculating the capacity of WSHPs when using the liquid enthalpy method. If a standard value should be used, DOE seeks comments on what that value should be.

    6. Discharge Coefficients for Airflow Measurement

    ISO 13256-1:1998 section D.1 requires airflow measurements to be made in accordance with the provisions specified in several different industry test standards, “as appropriate.” 4 However, ISO 13256-1:1998 is not explicit regarding the circumstances under which the different airflow measurement approaches included in these industry test standards should be used.

    4 ISO 3966:1977, “Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Velocity area method using Pitot static tubes;” ISO 5167-1:1991, “Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices—Part 1: Orifice plates, nozzles and Venturi tubes inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full;” and ISO 5221:1984, “Air Distribution and air diffusion—Rules to methods of measuring airflow rate in an air handling duct.

    Some of the airflow measurement approaches specified in ISO 13256-1:1998 use a nozzle apparatus. Airflow can be derived from measuring the change in pressure across a nozzle of known geometry. Airflow derivations using this approach often include a discharge coefficient (i.e., the ratio of actual discharge air to theoretical discharge air) to account for factors that reduce the actual discharge air, such as nozzle resistance and airflow turbulence. In general, as the nozzle throat diameter decreases, nozzle resistance increases, thereby reducing actual discharge which is characterized by a lower discharge coefficient. Turbulent airflow (as characterized by Reynolds numbers 5 ) and temperature also impact the discharge coefficient. Section F8.9 of annex F to ISO 13256-1:1998 uses a look-up table that specifies the discharge coefficient based on the eight different Reynolds numbers for nozzles with a throat diameter smaller than 12.5 centimeters, and a fixed discharge coefficient of 0.99 for nozzles with a throat diameter equal to or greater than 12.5 centimeters. In contrast, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which is a common industry standard for measuring airflow for similar equipment, includes provisions regarding the nozzle airflow measuring apparatus that are identical to the provisions in ISO 13256-1:1998, except for the method used to determine the coefficient of discharge. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 uses a calculation to determine the discharge coefficient for nozzles with a throat diameter smaller than 25 centimeters, and a fixed discharge coefficient of 0.99 for nozzles with a throat diameter equal to or greater than 25 centimeters.

    5 Reynolds number is a dimensionless number that characterizes the flow properties of a fluid. Section F8.9 of ISO 13256-1:1998 includes an equation for calculating Reynolds number that depends on a temperature factor, air velocity, and throat diameter.

    ISO 13256-1:1998 section F8.9 uses a second lookup table that specifies the temperature factor, used to calculate the Reynolds number, based on eight different air temperatures. For measured air temperature and calculated Reynolds numbers, ISO 13256-1:1998 does not specify what approach should be applied to determine the coefficient of discharge for air temperatures and Reynolds numbers that fall between the values specified in the look-up tables.

    Issue 15: DOE requests comment on which of the methods specified in ISO 13256-1:1998 (i.e., ISO 3966:1977, ISO 5167-1:1991, and ISO 5221:1984) are used by manufacturers to measure airflow of WSHPs, and whether this varies based on WSHP capacity or configuration. DOE requests comment on whether it should incorporate by reference additional industry test standards that outline the calculation method for airflow, such as ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE also requests information on how manufacturers determine the coefficient of discharge for air temperatures and Reynolds numbers that fall between the values specified in the look-up table in section F8.9 of annex F to ISO 13256-1:1998.

    7. Duct Loss Adjustments

    In the calculations for cooling and heating capacities for the indoor air enthalpy test method of ISO 13256-1: 1998, the test standard includes a footnote in sections B3 and B4 of annex B stating that the equations do not provide allowances for heat leakage in the test equipment (i.e., duct losses). In contrast, section 7.3.3.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 addresses duct loss adjustments.

    Issue 16: DOE requests confirmation whether the duct loss adjustments as described in section 7.3.3.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are used to adjust capacity measured using the indoor air enthalpy method when testing WSHPs. DOE requests comment on whether any other type of adjustments are used to address the fact that the capacity equations of ISO 13256-1:1998 do not provide allowances for heat leakage in the test equipment.

    8. Water Flow Rate

    Section 4.1.6 of ISO 13256-1:1998 indicates that WSHPs shall be tested using the water flow rate specified by the manufacturer, with a few exceptions depending on whether the WSHP includes an integral pump and whether the flow rate is automatically adjusted. DOE has reviewed publicly-available WSHP product literature and notes that manufacturers often list multiple water flow rates in performance data.

    In contrast, the test method for WCUACs (AHRI 340/360-2007) specifies both the water inlet and outlet temperatures to be 85 °F and 95 °F, respectively, which determines the water flow rate setting. ISO 13256-1:1998 does not include water outlet temperature rating conditions for WSHPs, so the water flow rate cannot be set by adjusting to match the prescribed test conditions.

    Issue 17: DOE requests comment on how manufacturers select water flow rate when testing WSHPs in cases where multiple flow rates are provided in product literature. DOE also requests comment on what the typical water temperature rise is during testing, and whether the typical test temperature rise is representative of field operation.

    9. Indoor Air Measurements

    Indoor air temperature and humidity are key parameters that affect WSHP performance, and for this reason, ISO 13256-1:1998 requires accurate indoor air condition measurements. However, DOE has tentatively determined that the method set forth in ISO 13256-1:1998 would benefit from additional specification as to indoor air temperature measurement. For air-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners, Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 provides details on entering outdoor air temperature measurement, including air sampling tree and aspirating psychrometer requirements, but AHRI 340/360-2015 does not state that these provisions apply for measurement of entering indoor air temperature and leaving indoor air temperature. DOE is considering whether the requirements contained in Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 (excluding the temperature uniformity requirements in Table C2) would be appropriate for indoor air measurements for testing WSHPs.

    Issue 18: DOE requests comment on whether the requirements for outdoor entering air measurement in Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 (excluding the temperature uniformity requirements in Table C2), such as air sampling requirements and aspirating psychrometer requirements, would be appropriate for measurement of indoor air entering and leaving temperatures for WSHPs.

    10. Refrigerant Charging

    ISO 13256-1:1998 does not provide any specific guidance on setting and verifying the refrigerant charge of a unit. In a test procedure final rule for central air conditioners (CACs) and heat pumps (HPs) published on June 8, 2016 (“June 2016 CAC TP final rule”), DOE established a comprehensive approach for refrigerant charging that improves test reproducibility. 81 FR 36992, 37030-37031. The approach specifies which set of installation instructions to use for charging, explains what to do if there are no instructions, specifies that target values of parameters are the centers of the ranges allowed by installation instructions, and specifies tolerances for the measured values. Id. The approach also requires that refrigerant line pressure gauges be installed for single-package units, unless otherwise specified in manufacturer instructions. Id. These methods could be considered for the WSHP test procedure.

    Issue 19: DOE seeks comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an approach for charging requirements for WSHPs similar or identical to the approach adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. DOE seeks comments regarding which parts of the approach should or should not be adopted, and for what reasons they might or might not be suitable for application to WSHPs. DOE is also interested in receiving data that demonstrate how sensitive the performance of a WSHP is relative to changes in the various charge indicators used for different charging methods, specifically the method based on sub-cooling.

    11. Voltage

    ISO 13256-1:1998 requires that for units rated with dual nameplate voltages, the test be performed at both voltages or at the lower voltage if only a single rating is to be published. DOE understands that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of air conditioners and is, therefore, considering adding provisions to its test procedure that specify at which nameplate voltage to conduct the test for dual nameplate voltage units.

    Issue 20: DOE requests data and information demonstrating the effect of voltage on air conditioning equipment (including, but not limited to, WSHPs). Specifically, DOE seeks comment on whether there is a consistent relationship between voltage and efficiency, and if so, whether testing at a lower voltage will typically result in a higher or lower tested efficiency. Further, DOE requests feedback on whether certain voltages within common dual nameplate voltage ratings (e.g., 208/230 V) are more representative of typical field installation.

    D. Other Test Procedure Topics

    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE welcomes comment on any other aspect of the existing test procedures for WSHPs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would improve the repeatability, reproducibility of the test procedures, as well as the ability of the test procedure to provide results that are representative of actual use. DOE also requests information that would help DOE create a procedure that would limit manufacturer test burden through streamlining or simplifying testing requirements. Comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility are also welcome.

    DOE also requests feedback on any potential amendments to the existing test procedure that could be considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses. Regarding the DOE test method, DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test procedure should consider and be harmonized with the most recent relevant industry standards for WSHPs, and whether there are any changes to the DOE test method that would provide additional benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and burdens of adopting any industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without modification. As discussed, the current DOE test procedure relies on ISO 13256-1:1998, with some additional provisions specified for equipment set-up. 10 CFR 431.96(e).

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

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by July 23, 2018, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for WSHPs. These comments and information will aid in the development of a test procedure NOPR for WSHPs if DOE determines that amended test procedures may be appropriate for this equipment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2018. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13430 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 11 CFR Parts 100 and 110 [Notice 2018-12] Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of “Public Communication” AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Election Commission is adding a second day to the already-announced public hearing on the proposed rules for disclaimers on public communications on the internet.

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held on June 27-28, 2018, and will begin at 9:30 a.m. on June 27, continuing the next day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The hearing will be held in the Commission's 12th floor hearing room at 1050 First St. NE, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff, Attorney, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 26, 2018, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) proposing to revise its regulations at 11 CFR 100.26 and 110.11 regarding disclaimers on communications placed for a fee on the internet that contain express advocacy, solicit contributions, or are made by political committees. Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of “Public Communication,” 83 FR 12864 (Mar. 26, 2018). In the NPRM, the Commission announced that it would hold a hearing on June 27, 2018, and that anyone wishing to testify at the hearing must file timely written comments including a request to testify. Id. The deadline for comments was May 25, 2018, and the Commission received more timely-filed requests to testify than can be accommodated in a one-day hearing.

    Accordingly, the Commission is extending the hearing to a second day: June 28, 2018. Witnesses will be limited to those persons who included a request to testify in their timely comments on the NPRM.

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna Brown, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040 at least 72 hours prior to the date of attendance. Individuals who cannot attend in person may view the hearing via webcast; on the hearing day, visit www.fec.gov for more information. The Commission will make transcripts of the hearing available on its website after the hearing.

    On behalf of the Commission,

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Caroline C. Hunter, Chair, Federal Election Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13390 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; Product Identifier 2018-NM-014-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; Product Identifier 2018-NM-014-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 2018-0009, dated January 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Dassault Mystère Falcon 200 aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in AMM [aircraft maintenance manual] ALS [airworthiness limitations section] Chapter 5-40. These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA previously issued AD 2008-0221 (later corrected), requiring the actions described in Dassault Mystère Falcon 200 AMM Chapter 5-40 (DMD 18740A) at Revision 14. Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault published the ALS, containing new and/or more restrictive maintenance tasks.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD takes over the requirements for Mystère Falcon 200 aeroplanes from EASA AD 2008-0221 and requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS.

    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-2018-0549.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Chapter 5-40-00, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017. The service information describes mandatory maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (i)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Dassault maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0549; Product Identifier 2018-NM-014-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 200 airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Chapter 5-40-00, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time specified in Falcon 200 Maintenance Manual, Airworthiness Limitations, Chapter 5-40-00, Revision 17, dated December 20, 2017; or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

    (h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0009, dated January 15, 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-2018-0549.

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

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13333 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0548; Product Identifier 2017-NM-184-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of broken P-clamps on the pressure relief line and the motive flow line in the left and right fuel tanks, and fouling conditions between the motive flow line and the collector tank partition wall in both fuel tanks. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane configuration: Increasing the hole size in the collector tank partition wall, inspecting the motive flow line for damage, and replacing the associated grommet and motive flow line; replacing the affected single nut plate brackets and standoffs at the affected stations on the motive flow line and pressure relief line; and inspecting the motive flow line and vent line at certain wing stations, and inspecting the fuel tubes, to verify that an appropriate clearance has been maintained between the fuel tubes and their support brackets, and applicable corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0548; 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:

    Joseph Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0548; Product Identifier 2017-NM-184-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-05R1, dated September 20, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Some operators have reported broken P-clamps on the pressure relief line and the motive flow line in the left and right fuel tanks. Fouling conditions were also reported to exist between the motive flow line and the collector tank partition wall in both fuel tanks. These issues affect the integrity of the electrical bonding paths throughout the fuel lines, which in turn may lead to lightning strike induced fuel tank ignition.

    The initial issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated design changes that mitigate the risk of lightning strike induced fuel tank ignition.

    Since the initial issue of this [Canadian] AD, Transport Canada has become aware that Bombardier (BA) Service Bulletin (SB) 84-28-19 Revision A, dated 4 November 2016, and the initial issue of BA SB 84-28-19, dated 16 August 2016, do not instruct operators to support the motive flow line and vent line at wing stations −371.019 and 371.019 in the left-hand and right-hand fuel tanks, respectively, and do not instruct operators to maintain appropriate clearance between the fuel tubes and their support brackets at wing stations −371.019 and −209.019 in the left-hand fuel tank and wing stations 371.019 and 209.019 in the right-hand fuel tank. Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD introduces Part III, which requires operators to inspect and correct the fuel tube installation on affected aeroplanes, as required, to maintain fuel tube support and clearance between the fuel tubes and their support brackets. Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD also updates SB references.

    Required actions include, depending on airplane configuration, increasing the hole size in the collector tank partition wall, inspecting the motive flow line for damage, and replacing the associated grommet and motive flow line; replacing the affected single nut plate brackets and standoffs at the affected stations on the motive flow line and pressure relief line; and inspecting the motive flow line and vent line at certain wing stations, and inspecting the fuel tubes, to verify that an appropriate clearance has been maintained between the fuel tubes and their support brackets, and applicable corrective actions. Corrective actions include reworking the replaced parts. 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-2018-0548.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-28-18, Revision B, dated April 20, 2017. This service information describes procedures to increase the hole size in the collector tank partition wall, inspect the motive flow line for damage, and replace the associated grommet and motive flow line.

    Bombardier has also issued Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision C, dated September 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures to replace the affected single nut plate brackets and standoffs at the affected stations on the motive flow line and pressure relief line, inspect the motive flow line and vent line at certain wing stations, and inspect the fuel tubes to verify that an appropriate clearance has been maintained between the fuel tubes and their support brackets, and applicable corrective actions.

    The 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 52 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 and modifications Up to 21 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,785 Up to $6,152 $7,937 Up to $412,724.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0548; Product Identifier 2017-NM-184-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 4001, and 4003 through 4533 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of broken P-clamps on the pressure relief line and the motive flow line in the left and right fuel tanks, and fouling conditions between the motive flow line and the collector tank partition wall in both fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to address fouling or chafing conditions that affect the integrity of the electrical bonding paths throughout the fuel lines, which could lead to lightning strike induced fuel tank ignition.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification of Hole Size on Collector Tank Partition Wall for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001, and 4003 through 4525 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD, increase the hole size in the collector tank partition wall, do a detailed inspection of the motive flow line for damage, including chafing, and replace the associated grommet and motive flow line, as applicable, before further flight in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-18, Revision B, dated April 20, 2017.

    (h) Introduction of Revised P-Clamp Installation at Affected Left and Right Wing Stations on the Motive Flow Line and Pressure Relief Line for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes, having S/Ns 4001, and 4003 through 4533 inclusive, on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, dated August 16, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision A, dated November 4, 2016; has not been incorporated: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD, replace the affected single nut plate brackets and standoffs at the affected left and right wing stations on the motive flow line and pressure relief line, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision C, dated September 1, 2017. Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision C, dated September 1, 2017, specifies to contact Bombardier for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Inspection of Motive Flow Line and Vent Line at Wing Stations −371.019 and 371.019 in the Fuel Tanks, and Inspection of Fuel Tubes

    For airplanes, having S/Ns 4001, and 4003 through 4533 inclusive, on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, dated August 16, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision A, dated November 4, 2016; have been incorporated: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD, inspect the motive flow line and vent line at wing stations −371.019 and 371.019 in the left-hand and right-hand fuel tanks, respectively, to ensure that these fuel tubes are adequately supported, inspect the fuel tubes to verify that an appropriate clearance has been maintained between the fuel tubes and their support brackets, and before further flight do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Section 3.A., Section 3.B.(13), and Section 3.C. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision C, dated September 1, 2017. Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision C, dated September 1, 2017, specifies to contact Bombardier for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-18, dated April 20, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-18, Revision A, dated November 14, 2016.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19 Revision B, dated July 28, 2017.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Section 3.A., Section 3.B.(13), and Section 3.C. of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-19, Revision B, dated July 28, 2017.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-05R1, dated September 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-2018-0548.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13335 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0550; Product Identifier 2018-NM-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of floodlight lamps found burned and the corresponding circuit breaker tripped as a result of fluid entering the cockpit floodlight fixtures. This proposed AD would require installation of a new gasket seal on floodlight fixtures. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0550; 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0550; Product Identifier 2018-NM-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-40, dated December 15, 2016; and Canadian AD CF-2018-06, dated February 19, 2018; to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes. Canadian AD CF-2016-40 and Canadian AD CF-2018-06 are referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI.”

    Canadian AD CF-2016-40 states:

    Several operators have reported a burning odor and smoke emanating from the cockpit floodlights. Bombardier Aerospace (BA) has determined the cause to be fluid entering into the cockpit floodlight fixtures causing short circuits and damage to electrical components. If not corrected, this condition may result in a fire in the cockpit.

    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the installation of a new gasket seal on the floodlight fixture.

    Canadian AD CF-2018-06 states:

    [Canadian] AD CF-2016-40, applicable to Bombardier Inc. model CL-600-2B16 (604 [CL-604 Variants serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive] and 605 [CL-604 Variants serial numbers 5701 through 5988 inclusive] variants) aeroplanes, was issued to address the potential of water penetrating into cockpit floodlight fixtures. A similar condition exists on the CL-600-2B16 (650 variant [CL-604 Variants serial numbers 6050 through 6070 inclusive]) aeroplanes. This condition can cause short circuits and damage to electrical components, which may result in a fire in the cockpit.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of gasket seals on the pilot and co-pilot floodlight fixtures to prevent fluid from entering them.

    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-2018-0550.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 03, dated October 2, 2017.

    The service information describes procedures to install a new gasket seal on floodlight fixtures. These documents are distinct since they apply to different configurations of the same airplane model. The 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 design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 123 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 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $170 $0 Up to $170 Up to $20,910.

    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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0550; Product Identifier 2018-NM-024-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, 5701 through 5988 inclusive, and 6050 through 6070 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 33, Lights.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of floodlight lamps found burned and the corresponding circuit breaker tripped as a result of fluid entering the cockpit floodlight fixtures. We are issuing this AD to prevent fluid from entering the cockpit floodlight fixtures, which could cause short circuits and damage to electrical components, which may result in a fire in the cockpit.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017: Within 38 months after the effective date of this AD, install new gasket seals in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

    (2) For airplanes identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017: Within 38 months after the effective date of this AD, install new gasket seals in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, Revision 02, dated October 2, 2017.

    (3) For airplanes identified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 03, dated October 2, 2017: Within 38 months after the effective date of this AD, install new gasket seals in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 03, dated October 2, 2017.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by (g)(1), if those actions were performed before the effective date using Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, dated September 29, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-33-007, Revision 01, dated November 30, 2015.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by (g)(2), if those actions were performed before the effective date using Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, dated September 29, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-33-005, Revision 01, dated November 30, 2015.

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by (g)(3), if those actions were performed before the effective date using the service information specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i), (h)(3)(ii), or (h)(3)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, dated October 1, 2015.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 01, dated November 30, 2015.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-33-001, Revision 02, dated March 11, 2016.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-40, dated December 15, 2016; and Canadian AD CF-2018-06, dated February 19, 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-2018-0550.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected].

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13334 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0475; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-4] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Chebeague Island, ME AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chebeague Island Heliport, Chebeague Island, ME, to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures serving the heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202)-366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0475; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chebeague Island Heliport, Chebeague Island, ME, to support standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this heliport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0475 and Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-4) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0475; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Chebeague Island Heliport, Chebeague Island, ME, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at Chebeague Island Heliport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE ME E5 Chebeague Island, ME [New] Chebeague Island Heliport, ME (Lat. 43°43′45″ N, long. 70°07′37″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Chebeague Island Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 14, 2018. Ken Brissenden, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13370 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9556; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-2] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment and Modification of Area Navigation Routes, Atlantic Coast Route Project; Northeastern United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017, proposing to establish 12 high altitude area navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes), and modify one existing Q-route, in support of the Atlantic Coast Route Project (ACRP). The FAA reviewed project scoping and determined that additional planning is warranted to ensure a more efficient implementation and integration with other ongoing program activities, and determined that withdrawal of the proposed rule is warranted.

    DATES:

    Effective as of 0901 UTC, June 22, 2018, the proposed rule published January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1276), is withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

    The FAA published a NPRM in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2016-9556 (82 FR 1276; January 5, 2017). The NPRM proposed 12 new Q-routes (Q-75, Q-97, Q-167, Q-220, Q-411, Q-419, Q-430, Q-437, Q-439, Q-445, Q-450 and Q-479); and existing route Q-480, along the Atlantic Coast, in the northeastern U.S.

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

    FAA's Conclusions

    The FAA has reviewed project scoping and determined that additional planning is warranted to ensure a more efficient implementation and integration with other ongoing program activities; therefore, the NPRM is withdrawn.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Withdrawal Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1276), FR Doc. 2016-31911, is hereby withdrawn. Authority:

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2018. Scott J. Gardner, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13377 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1043; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-18] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Bloomsburg, PA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Bloomsburg, PA, due to the decommissioning of the Milton very high frequency omni-directional range collocated tactical air navigation aid (VORTAC) which requires airspace reconfiguration at Bloomsburg Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2017-1043; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Bloomsburg Municipal Airport, Bloomsburg, PA, to support IFR operations at the airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1043; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-18.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within a 11.8-mile radius of Bloomsburg Municipal Airport, Bloomsburg, PA. and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO AL E5 Bloomsburg, PA [Amended] Bloomsburg Municipal Airport, PA (Lat. 40°59′52″ N, long. 76°26′07″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 11.8-mile radius of Bloomsburg Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 14, 2018. Ken Brissenden, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13371 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 105 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0711] RIN 1625-AC47 TWIC—Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes delaying the effective date for certain facilities affected by the final rule entitled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)—Reader Requirements,” published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2016. The current effective date for the final rule is August 23, 2018. The Coast Guard proposes delaying the effective date for two categories of facilities: Facilities that handle certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do not transfer these cargoes to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer these bulk cargoes to or from those vessels. The Coast Guard proposes delaying the effective date for these two categories of facilities by 3 years, until August 23, 2021. Other vessels and facilities, including facilities that receive large passenger vessels and facilities regulated under 33 CFR 105.295 that handle certain dangerous cargoes in bulk and transfer it to or from a vessel, would be required to comply with the final rule by August 23, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0711 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice of proposed rulemaking for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document, call or email LCDR Yamaris Barril, Coast Guard CG-FAC-2; telephone 202-372-1151, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents for Preamble I. Public Participation and Request for Comments II. Abbreviations III. Regulatory History IV. Background A. Electronic TWIC Inspection B. Coast Guard Analysis and the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) Report C. Summary of Methodology Used in the TWIC Rulemaking D. Petition for Rulemaking and Identified Weaknesses V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule to Delay the Effective Date VI. Regulatory Analysis A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice of proposed rulemaking for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice of proposed rulemaking, and all public comments, will be available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

    II. Abbreviations AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process ANPRM Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CDC Certain Dangerous Cargoes DHS Department of Homeland Security ECI Employment Cost Index FR Federal Register HSI Homeland Security Institute MSRAM Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 SME Subject matter expert § Section symbol TSA Transportation Security Administration TSI Transportation Security Incident TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential U.S.C. United States Code III. Regulatory History

    Pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA),1 and in accordance with section 104 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act),2 Congress requires the electronic inspection of Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC®) inside secure areas on vessels and in facilities in the United States. Specifically, the SAFE Port Act required that the Secretary promulgate final regulations that require the deployment of electronic transportation security card readers.3 To implement this requirement in an effective manner, the Coast Guard undertook a series of regulatory actions culminating in a requirement to implement electronic TWIC inspection at certain high-risk vessels and facilities regulated under MTSA.

    1 Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064 (November 25, 2002).

    2 Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 1889 (October 13, 2006).

    3See 46 U.S.C. 70105(k)(3).

    On May 22, 2006, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Transportation

    Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License.” 4 On January 25, 2007, the Coast Guard and TSA published a final rule with the same title.5 The 2007 final rule established the requirement, among others, that all persons allowed unescorted access to secure areas in MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities must possess a valid TWIC. The 2007 final rule did not, however, mandate that the TWIC be read with an electronic reader and, as such, allowed for visual inspection. Visual inspection does not make use of the electronic security measures built into the TWIC, such as the challenge/response to the TWIC's unique electronic identifier, comparison of the credential to the TWIC Cancelled Card List, and verification of the biometric template stored on the TWIC to the individual's biometrics.

    4 71 FR 29396 (May 22, 2006).

    5 72 FR at 3492 (January 25, 2007).

    Although the May 22, 2006, NPRM proposed certain TWIC reader requirements, after reviewing the public comments, the Coast Guard decided not to include the proposed TWIC reader requirements in the 2007 final rule. Instead, the Coast Guard addressed TWIC reader requirements in a separate rulemaking after conducting a pilot program to address the feasibility of reader requirements.6 For a detailed discussion of the public comments and our responses to them, refer to section III.B.7 of the 2007 final rule.

    6 The SAFE Port Act required DHS to conduct a pilot program to test the business processes, technology, and operational impacts of TWIC readers in the maritime environment, and to issue regulations that require the deployment of TWIC readers that are consistent with the findings of the pilot program. See 46 U.S.C. 70105(k)(1) and (3).

    On March 27, 2009, the Coast Guard published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the topic of TWIC reader requirements.7 The ANPRM discussed dividing vessels and facilities into three “risk groups”—Risk Group A for the high-risk vessels and facilities, Risk Group B for medium-risk vessels and facilities, and Risk Group C for low-risk vessels and facilities. The ANPRM also considered different electronic inspection requirements for Risk Groups A and B, with no electronic inspection requirements for Risk Group C. On March 22, 2013, we published an NPRM 8 that proposed the three risk groups (A, B, and C), but limited the proposed electronic TWIC inspection requirements to Risk Group A vessels and facilities only.

    7 74 FR 13360 (March 27, 2009).

    8 78 FR 17782 (March 22, 2013).

    On August 23, 2016, we published a final rule entitled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)—Reader Requirements” 9 (“TWIC Reader final rule”) that eliminated the three risk group structure and required that the high-risk vessels and facilities (still referred to as Risk Group A) conduct electronic TWIC inspection for all personnel seeking unescorted access to secure areas of the vessel or facility. The TWIC Reader final rule becomes effective on August 23, 2018. On May 15, 2017, we received a petition for rulemaking from the International Liquid Terminals Association and other industry groups.10 The rulemaking petition requested that we revise the scope of the TWIC Reader final rule to impose electronic TWIC inspection requirements on only those vessels and facilities that engage in the maritime transfer of certain dangerous cargoes (CDCs), and extend the compliance date of the TWIC Reader final rule so that vessels and facilities do not incur costs while the Coast Guard reviews the scope of the TWIC Reader final rule. On May 18, 2017, the Coast Guard opened a public docket on www.regulations.gov, and acknowledged receipt of the rulemaking petition by letter dated May 25, 2017. The industry's rulemaking petition is discussed in greater detail below in section IV.D.

    9 81 FR 57652.

    10 See Docket number USCG-2017-0447, available at www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Background

    In this NPRM, we propose to delay the effective date of the TWIC Reader final rule, until August 23, 2021, for two categories of facilities. The rationale for the proposed delay is to consider industry input asking us to reconsider the scope of the TWIC Reader final rule and to re-evaluate the underlying methodology used to determine the facilities subject to the electronic TWIC inspection requirements. For these reasons, and to provide appropriate context necessary to understand the purpose of this NPRM, we have included background information in this NPRM that details: (1) Why the electronic TWIC inspection requirements were originally proposed for certain categories of facilities; (2) the Coast Guard's methodology used to analyze risk, including the need to re-evaluate that methodology; and (3) the related petition for rulemaking we received after publication of the TWIC Reader final rule. Specifically, we examine the two technical reports issued in 2008 that explained how we would categorize facilities to analyze risk, which formed the basis for the regulatory framework laid out in the 2009 ANPRM. Overall, these reports provide the foundation for the regulatory framework set forth in the TWIC reader rulemaking documents. In this framework, we first grouped individual facilities by “asset categories”.11 Then, we used certain analytical techniques, described below, to rank those categories by relative risk, creating a linear list of 68 different asset categories. Finally, we grouped similarly-risked facilities together into “Risk Groups,” to which different regulatory requirements would apply. This analysis, with its strengths and weaknesses, is discussed below.

    11 Each of these “asset categories” describes a certain purpose or operational description. For example, “gravel transfer facilities” would be considered under the same umbrella (i.e., in one “asset category”), rather than as individual facilities.

    A. Electronic TWIC Inspection

    The TWIC Reader final rule was promulgated to fulfill the Congressional mandate found in section 104 of the SAFE Port Act.12 The SAFE Port Act, which required the Coast Guard to conduct a pilot program to evaluate the effectiveness of TWIC readers and promulgate regulations in accordance with the findings of that program, led to the development of the TWIC reader rulemaking. The TWIC Reader final rule, the culmination of that rulemaking process, required that high-risk facilities conduct “electronic TWIC inspection,” and mandated security improvements above and beyond the existing requirements set forth in the 2007 final rule that all persons with unescorted access to secure areas possess a TWIC. Specifically, for high-risk facilities called “Risk Group A facilities,” the TWIC Reader final rule required that, upon each entry into a secure area,13 the person requesting entry must present a TWIC for electronic inspection before that person would be permitted unescorted access to the area.14 Other MTSA-regulated facilities (i.e., those facilities not in Risk Group A) may continue to use visual inspection of the TWIC and are not subject to the requirement for electronic inspection.15 Because the TWIC Reader final rule did not change the existing definition of a secure area in 33 CFR 101.105, and imposed no requirements in other areas,16 the primary effect of the rule should be to require facilities that are already using visual inspection of the TWIC as part of their access control procedures to use electronic TWIC inspection instead, strengthening existing access control procedures.

    12 Because this NPRM addresses facilities only, we have omitted further discussion about application of the TWIC program to vessels and outer continental shelf facilities (33 CFR parts 104 and 106, respectively).

    13 “Secure area” is defined in 33 CFR 101.105 as “the area onboard a vessel or at a facility or outer continental shelf facility over which the owner/operator has implemented security measures for access control in accordance with a Coast Guard approved security plan. It does not include passenger access areas, employee access areas, or public access areas, as those terms are defined in §§ 104.106, 104.107, and 105.106, respectively, of this subchapter. Vessels operating under the waivers provided for at 46 U.S.C. 8103(b)(3)(A) or (B) have no secure areas. Facilities subject to part 105 of this subchapter located in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa have no secure areas. Facilities subject to part 105 of this subchapter may, with approval of the Coast Guard, designate only those portions of their facility that are directly connected to maritime transportation or are at risk of being involved in a transportation security incident as their secure areas.”

    14See TWIC Reader final rule, section 105.255(a)(4).

    15 Pursuant to existing Coast Guard guidance, facilities not included in Risk Group A may use electronic inspection in lieu of visual inspection on a voluntary basis. See PAC-01-11, “Voluntary use of TWIC Readers,” available at https://homeport.uscg.mil.

    16 The definition of “secure area” specifically excludes areas like passenger access areas, employee access areas, facilities in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, etc. The TWIC Reader final rule imposed no requirements on those types of areas.

    Inspection of the TWIC, whether electronic or visual, provides a baseline of information to determine who may be provided unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities. While not every person who possesses a TWIC is authorized for unescorted access, the TWIC inspection process ensures that facility security personnel do not grant unescorted access to individuals who have not been vetted or who have been adjudicated unfit for unescorted access to secure areas.

    Electronic TWIC inspection is the process by which the TWIC is authenticated and validated, and by which the individual presenting the TWIC is matched to the stored biometric template. This process consists of three discrete parts: (1) Authentication, in which the TWIC presented is identified as an authentic credential issued by TSA; (2) validity check, in which the TWIC presented is compared to the TSA-supplied list of cancelled TWICs to ensure that it has not been revoked and is not expired; and (3) identity verification, in which biometric data stored on the TWIC presented is matched to the person presenting it using a fingerprint scan. Electronic TWIC inspection strengthens the inspection of TWIC, as compared to visual TWIC inspection, resulting in increased security at high-risk facilities. While visual TWIC inspection can accomplish the same three goals as electronic inspection (authentication, validation, and identify verification), visual inspection is not as thorough or reliable.

    Electronic TWIC inspection improves on visual inspection by adding additional benefits. With electronic inspection, the authenticity of the TWIC is verified by issuing a challenge/response to the unique electronic identifier of the TWIC, called a Card Holder Unique Identifier. The validity of the TWIC is determined by electronically checking the TWIC against a database with the most recently updated list of cancelled TWICs. Finally, the identity of the person presenting the TWIC is verified by matching the biometric template stored on the TWIC with the presenter's biometrics though use of a fingerprint scan. These three aspects of electronic inspection represent improvements over visual inspection because they are not easily counterfeited or altered within the TWIC.17 Additionally, electronic inspection ensures that the TWIC presented has not been invalidated because it was reported lost or stolen (or for other reasons), or revoked because of a criminal conviction.

    17 That is, one can create a lookalike of a TWIC card, which does not have a working chip or is not linked to the TSA database, and it may not be detected as a counterfeit card if the card was only subject to visual inspection. However, the non-working chip and lack of connection to the TSA database would be detected if the counterfeit card were scanned by a TWIC reader, and the reader could not confirm the authenticity of the card or match it to known card.

    B. Coast Guard Analysis and the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) Report

    The Coast Guard based its decision about which vessels and facilities to include in Risk Group A on a study entitled “Analysis of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Electronic Reader Requirements in the Maritime Sector,” 18 (March 6, 2008) (the “Coast Guard TWIC Report”). The Coast Guard TWIC Report documented the risk-based analytic approach used to develop the TWIC reader requirements in the maritime sector, and supported the drafting of the proposed regulatory requirements for the use of TWIC readers as an access control measure. This study was independently verified in a report titled “Independent Verification and Validation of Development of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements,” developed by the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) (October 21, 2008) (the “HSI Report”).19

    18 While the full Coast Guard TWIC Report contains sensitive security information, a redacted version of the document is available on the public docket for the TWIC rulemaking, available at www.regulations.gov as docket number USCG-2007-28915-0117.

    19 “Independent Verification and Validation of Development of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Reader Requirements,” developed by the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) (October 21, 2008) (the “HSI Report”). While the full HSI Report contains sensitive security information, a redacted version of the document is available on the public docket for the TWIC rulemaking, available at www.regulations.gov as docket number USCG-2007-28915-0119.

    To develop the Coast Guard TWIC Report, the Coast Guard assembled a panel of maritime security subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Coast Guard and TSA to conduct a risk-based analysis of MTSA-regulated vessels and facilities. The panel determined that the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) would provide an effective basis for applying the panel's judgment to weigh and apply several key factors to the assessment of types of vessels and facilities.20 The AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a problem, representing and quantifying its elements, and relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating a set of alternative solutions. The AHP has been used by government and industry to assess alternatives and arrive at solutions when faced with problems that present disparate criteria and factors for consideration.

    20 Coast Guard TWIC Report, p. 4.

    The Coast Guard's panel of SMEs identified 68 distinct types of vessels and facilities (referred to as “asset categories”) based on their purpose or operational description. The panel then assessed each of the 68 asset categories using three factors: (1) Maximum consequences to the vessel or facility resulting from a terrorist attack; (2) criticality to the health and economy of the Nation, and to national security; and (3) utility of the TWIC in reducing risk. The panel used this methodology to develop the framework discussed in the 2009 ANPRM and proposed in the 2013 TWIC Reader NPRM, in which the Coast Guard required vessels and facilities that had the highest vulnerabilities, and that could derive benefits from TWIC readers, to use electronic inspection procedures. The Coast Guard TWIC Report recognized that, while “security measures are not implemented in a `one size fits all' fashion . . . Coast Guard regulations also need to be prescriptive to ensure appropriate implementation in a uniform manner nationally.” 21 For that reason, the Coast Guard TWIC Report recommended the Coast Guard determine “. . . the risk level of facilities and vessels . . . as it relates to access control and assign TWIC reader requirements accordingly.” 22 Additionally, the Coast Guard TWIC Report noted that “in general, [asset categories] are ranked by the hazards of the cargo (or passenger quantities) carried by the vessel or handled by the facility” 23 and thus suggested that the high-risk vessels and facilities were those containing bulk CDCs and those carrying more than 1,000 passengers.24

    21 Coast Guard TWIC Report, p.3.

    22 Coast Guard TWIC Report, p.3.

    23 Coast Guard TWIC Report, p.11.

    24 Coast Guard TWIC Report, p.13, figure 12.

    The HSI Report was designed to determine the validity of the Coast Guard methodology for analyzing the underlying risk to vessels and facilities outlined in the Coast Guard TWIC Report and the effectiveness of the overall TWIC program in mitigating that risk. As stated in the HSI Report, its purpose was to “strengthen the USCG's TWIC reader requirements development efforts by evaluating (1) the validity of the risk assessment methodology, (2) the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and (3) the overall strengths and limitations of the risk analysis.” 25

    25 HSI Report, p.1.

    The HSI Report validated the Coast Guard's risk assessment methodology. Specifically, the report's foremost conclusion was that HSI “verified the [risk-based] process because we were able to independently reproduce the results based on the information provided in the TWIC report . . . we have also validated the process and found it generally defensible and based on a rigorous risk framework [emphasis in original].” 26 The HSI Report also affirmed the three criteria that the Coast Guard panel used to determine the risk ranking for the 68 asset categories (Maritime Security Risk Analysis Model (MSRAM) maximum consequence data, criticality of infrastructure, and TWIC utility), and noted that the MSRAM maximum consequence data were “the most rigorous among the three due to the well-established and ongoing work of the MSRAM.” 27 On the other hand, the HSI Report noted that the TWIC utility criterion was “perhaps the most uncertain among the three evaluation criteria.” 28

    26 HSI Report, p.2.

    27 HSI Report, p.2.

    28 HSI Report, p.2.

    While the Coast Guard TWIC Report and the HSI Report ranked the relative risk of facilities based on asset category, the HSI Report did not unequivocally state that asset categorization was the best methodology to use. Indeed, in the executive summary, the report noted that “[t]he 68 asset categories considered in the well-established MSRAM were ranked based on their risk scores. The list is considered comprehensive based upon its widespread use. Nevertheless, we also point out that there might still be variations among assets in the same category [emphasis added].” 29 Despite this uncertainty, in the 2013 TWIC Reader NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to use the asset category methodology to determine which types of facilities would be required to use electronic TWIC inspection in their security protocols.

    29 HSI Report, p.2.

    Furthermore, the HSI Report identified several recommendations that could have been used to improve the methodology to develop the Coast Guard's risk analysis. Most fundamentally, the HSI Report suggested that further analysis on risk grouping of asset categories—that is, which categories should be included in Risk Group A—could help to ensure that the results were more defensible. The HSI Report also suggested that the Coast Guard better define TWIC utility and add mechanisms that allow more flexibility in applying TWIC reader requirements. Finally, noting that the electronic TWIC inspection requirements discussed in the Coast Guard TWIC Report (and, in part, ultimately promulgated in the TWIC Reader final rule) were developed based on the 2006 MSRAM data, the HSI Report stated that “there is probably a need to reassess reader requirements using recently updated MSRAM data. At a minimum [emphasis added], a preliminary assessment should be conducted to determine the potential impacts of the use of the new data.” 30

    30 HSI Report, p.3.

    After reviewing the methodology used in the TWIC Reader final rule, we believe that the information the methodology contained was generally accurate. Specifically, we believe that the general conclusions of the MSRAM analysis documented in the Coast Guard TWIC Report and validated in the HSI Report were correct and that the facilities that handle bulk CDC or receive large passenger vessels constitute the most severe vulnerabilities. What the recommendations of the HSI Report indicate, however, is that there is room for improvement within certain aspects of that general methodology, which we discuss in more detail in Section V of this NPRM.

    C. Summary of Methodology Used in the TWIC Rulemaking

    To ensure that the TWIC reader requirement was applied only to those facilities where the readers could enhance security the most, the Coast Guard designated certain facilities as high risk, putting them into Risk Group A. The TWIC Reader final rule requires that facilities in Risk Group A conduct electronic TWIC inspection to identify that a person seeking unescorted access to a secure area has undergone a biometric identification check, a card authentication check, and a card validation check to ensure that the person is authorized to have access. To determine which vessels and facilities should be included in Risk Group A, we relied on MSRAM. MSRAM is a risk-analysis tool used to analyze vulnerabilities and risk-mitigation measures in a wide variety of scenarios.

    MSRAM identified three hypothetical scenarios in which a TWIC reader could be useful in preventing or mitigating terrorist attacks: (1) A truck bomb; (2) a terrorist assault team; and (3) an explosive attack carried out by a passenger or passerby (with the specific stipulation that the terrorist is not an “insider”).31 MSRAM also identified risk factors that made a facility or vessel particularly susceptible to these types of attacks and thus warranted the inclusion of that facility or vessel in Risk Group A. As we stated in the NPRM, “in determining the cutoff points between risk groups, risk rankings were graphed to identify natural breaks that occurred in the data . . . for facilities, these breaks generally occurred where there was a change in the hazardous nature of the materials stored or handled at a facility, or where the number of passengers accessing a facilities increased.” 32

    31 See 81 FR 57652, 57659. While there are other means of attacking a facility, we focused on these three scenarios because there is a significant improvement in threat mitigation by moving from visual TWIC inspection to electronic TWIC inspection.

    32 See 78 FR 17782, at 17791.

    Using the asset categories identified in the HSI Report and the risk analysis conducted under MSRAM, the Coast Guard found that three discrete classes of facilities could experience security benefits that are significant enough to warrant the requirement for electronic TWIC inspection. These included: (1) Facilities that handle CDC in bulk; 33 (2) facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk; and 3) facilities that receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers.34 Each of these types of facilities contain targets—either bulk CDC or groups of more than 1,000 passengers—that could be attacked using a method identified above, with a result potentially catastrophic enough to be classified as a TSI.

    33 The term “Certain Dangerous Cargo” is defined in 33 CFR 101.105 by reference to 33 CFR 160.202, which lists all covered substances.

    34 See text for 33 CFR 105.253(a)(1) and (2), 81 FR 57652, 57712.

    In the TWIC Reader final rule, our goal was to apply the requirements for electronic TWIC inspection only to those high-risk facilities that could most benefit from its use. Because the asset categories identified in this NPRM contained a vulnerable target, and the threat to that vulnerability could be mitigated by electronic TWIC inspection, we believe that the security benefits justify the cost of the upgraded security. As reported in the Regulatory Analysis section of the TWIC Reader final rule, we estimated that the electronic TWIC inspection provision would extend to 290 bulk liquid facilities, 16 break bulk and solid facilities, 3 container facilities, 61 “mixed use” facilities, and 165 passenger facilities, for a total of 525 facilities.35

    35 See 81 FR 57712, at 57698, Table 5.

    D. Petition for Rulemaking and Identified Weaknesses

    After publication of the TWIC Reader final rule in August 2016, we received several questions from the public about our risk analysis, as well as a rulemaking petition to reconsider the scope of the TWIC Reader final rule.36 A primary issue that arose was whether the Coast Guard's risk analysis properly analyzed the location of bulk CDC in a facility. For example, the rulemaking petitioner raised the issue that, because many Risk Group A facilities store or handle bulk CDC in areas unconnected to their maritime nexus, such facilities may not pose as large a risk to transportation infrastructure as those Risk Group A facilities that handle bulk CDC in the marine transfer area and actively transfer it to or from vessels. In addition, we received several inquiries regarding how the Coast Guard would categorize small quantities of bulk 37 CDC used for the direct operations of the facility. Examples of this issue include operational use of CDCs, such as relatively small tanks of propane used internally at a facility to generate electricity or to power port equipment, that would still fall into the broad category of “CDC in bulk,” 38 and yet would also seem to pose few of the security concerns described in the Coast Guard's risk analysis.

    36 This petition is located in the docket at www.regulations.gov, docket number USCG-2017-0447. While we acknowledge some of the issues raised in that petition here, we note that this NPRM does not constitute a grant or denial of that petition.

    37 Bulk, in this context, refers to how the cargoes are packaged rather than to an amount. The terms “bulk” or “in bulk” are defined in 33 CFR 101.105, in part, as “a commodity that is loaded or carried without containers or labels, and that is received and handled without mark or count.” See similar definitions in 33 CFR 126.3 and 160.3.

    38 As this term is used in the text of 33 CFR 105.253(a)(1), 81 FR 57652, 57712.

    Furthermore, even though bulk CDC could be attacked by the identified attack methods from the Coast Guard's risk analysis no matter where it is located in the facility,39 the petitioner suggested that the consequence of such an attack may not be as severe if the bulk CDC is kept far from the marine transfer area. For example, many gasoline refineries may be considered Risk Group A under the TWIC Reader final rule, as they receive shipments of bulk oil, which are not a CDC, from tankships and combine it with chemicals that are CDCs, which may be stored and processed in an inland part of the facility. The petitioner requested, among other things, that the Coast Guard revise the requirements for electronic TWIC inspection so that only facilities that transfer bulk CDC to or from a vessel would be subject to the TWIC Reader final rule requirements. This would exclude from the regulation those facilities where bulk CDC exists but is not transferred to or from a vessel, including facilities where the CDC is stored on land or stored on the water and not transferred to land (i.e., facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk but do not transfer bulk CDC to or from these vessels).

    39 The specific attack methods were discussed in the TWIC Reader final rule, Section V.A.2, “Risk analysis methodology,” These scenarios were: (1) A truck bomb, (2) a terrorist assault team, and (3) an explosive attack carried out by a passenger or passerby (with the specific caveat that the terrorist is not an “insider”). 81 FR 57652, 57659.

    At this time, we are not issuing a grant or denial for the petition for rulemaking, but we do wish to acknowledge that the issue of bulk CDC located in non-maritime areas, which were raised by the petitioner, factored into the Coast Guard's rationale to re-examine the asset categorization that underpins the risk analysis methodology in the TWIC rulemaking.40 Specifically, it was one of the factors that caused us to focus on the conclusions in the HSI Report that we “consider further analysis on risk grouping of asset categories,” and that we “consider adding mechanisms that allow flexibility in applying reader requirements.” 41 We also note that during the TWIC rulemaking process, other commenters raised similar issues, suggesting that the Coast Guard incorporate additional mechanisms for waivers and exemptions for various types of situations in which the commenters did not believe additional security measures were warranted.42 While we stated at the time that existing waiver provisions in 33 CFR 105.130 enable the Coast Guard to grant “a waiver of any requirement that the owner or operator considers unnecessary,” 43 at this time, we do not have a full and consistent picture of what specific security vulnerabilities would need to be addressed in order to grant a waiver based on equivalency. Specifically, because any equivalency determination would need to be based on a determination of TWIC utility, which is not covered in the facility's security assessment, we would be applying any such waivers on an inconsistent and uncertain basis. For that reason, there is a need to develop a more comprehensive analysis of the risk factors of facilities that handle CDC on an individualized basis, and the results of that analysis could inform either a revision of the TWIC reader rule applicability or, alternatively, to develop a consistent methodology for applying waivers. Further analysis could allow the Coast Guard to provide broad relief from security requirements for a wide variety of facilities currently characterized as Risk Group A due to the asset categorization methodology.

    40 Several other issues raised by the petitioner, such as questions regarding administrative procedure and economic analysis, are not addressed in this document. We plan to issue a formal response to that petition that will respond to all issues it raised.

    41 HSI Report, p. 3.

    42 See Section III.E.3.a of the NPRM “Public Comments Received in Response to the ANPRM and Public Meeting,” 78 FR 17782, 17796.

    43 78 FR 17782, at 17811.

    In the NPRM, the Coast Guard addressed the issue of bulk CDC located outside of areas related to maritime transportation. In response to a comment suggesting that facility owners should not be required to use TWIC readers for certain portions of their facilities, we noted that facilities already had an “option to redefine their `secure area' as only that portion of their access control area that is directly related to maritime transportation . . .” and that “facilities whose footprint includes portions that are not directly related to maritime transportation can submit a [Facility Security Plan] for Coast Guard approval that removes those areas from the definition of the facility's `secure area' for Coast Guard regulatory purposes.” 44 The Coast Guard went on to note that “[s]uch facilities would typically include refineries, chemical plants, factories, mills, power plants, smelting operations, or recreational boat marinas.” 45

    44 78 FR 17782, at 17803.

    45Id.

    In the TWIC Reader final rule, we also addressed the issue of bulk CDC located outside of the maritime nexus of the facility. We noted that a facility where bulk CDC is stored and handled away from the maritime nexus would be a Risk Group A facility (because the bulk CDC would still be protected by the facility's security plan and, thus, would present a vulnerability), and stated that “when the bulk CDC is not a part of the maritime transportation activities, it may be that a facility could define its MTSA footprint in such a way as to exclude that area . . . [with the result that] the TWIC reader requirements . . . would not apply in that area.” 46

    46 See 81 FR 57712, at 57681.

    In summary, we believe that the manner in which the TWIC Reader final rule defines Risk Group A may be overbroad. While some facilities that handle bulk CDC that is not transferred to or from a vessel present a serious risk of a TSI, the fact that it was evident that exceptions and waivers would be necessary to implement the program indicates that there may be a need for more refinement of the Risk Group A category. The petitioners and others, such as owners and operators of facilities that would have to comply with the TWIC Reader final rule and members of Congress who represent this interests of those persons, who have discussed the TWIC Reader final rule with the Coast Guard have raised valid issues about whether the risk groupings established in the TWIC Reader final rule represent the best definition of high-risk facilities that can benefit from the requirement of electronic TWIC inspection. Because it is our goal to impose a requirement only where there is clear evidence that the benefits will justify the costs, we believe that these issues warrant additional study.

    V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule To Delay the Effective Date

    Based on industry input, the recommendations outlined in the HSI Report, and the length of time that has passed since the development of the original risk analysis, we are proposing in this NPRM a temporary, partial delay in implementing the requirements for electronic TWIC inspection for certain facilities. Specifically, we are proposing to delay for 3 years implementation of the requirements for electronic TWIC inspection at facilities that handle bulk CDC but do not transfer it to or from a vessel and facilities that receive vessels that carry bulk CDC but, during that vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the vessel. All other vessels and facilities subject to the electronic TWIC inspection requirements, including facilities that receive large passenger vessels and facilities regulated under 33 CFR 105.295 that handle bulk CDC and transfer it to or from a vessel, would still be required to comply on the August 23, 2018, compliance date.

    We are proposing this delay because we believe that we can better consider the risk methodology used in the TWIC Reader final rule. When we determined that the presence of CDC in bulk within the MTSA footprint was enough justification for a facility to be considered Risk Group A (i.e., used the asset categorization methodology from the original Coast Guard TWIC Report and HSI Report), we eliminated more precise risk analysis capabilities for assessing whether a particular facility is high risk and warrants the additional regulatory burden of requiring electronic TWIC inspection. That is, when using the asset categorization methodology, the Coast Guard did not examine each facility individually to determine the precise amount of risk posted by a specific facility. We believe that delaying the implementation of the TWIC Reader final rule requirements for certain facilities could allow us to develop a more precise risk-analysis methodology that would better identify which of these facilities subject to the 3-year delayed implementation date would benefit from the electronic TWIC inspection requirements.

    The items raised by the petitioners and recommendations provided by the HSI Report establish the parameters of what the Coast Guard plans to study and reevaluate during the proposed delay period. Specifically, we would analyze whether we can divide the general asset category of “facilities that handle CDC in bulk” into more specific asset categories for purposes of implementing the electronic TWIC inspection requirement. Additionally, the delay period would allow the Coast Guard to determine factors that, if they do not lend themselves to subdividing the asset categories, would be able to provide guidance for waiver procedures. These factors could include, but are not limited to, the quantity of bulk CDC handled or stored, the location within the facility where the CDC is handled or stored, and the population density or other critical infrastructure elements in and around the facility. Furthermore, more precise analysis of specific facility aspects, such as plume modeling, analysis of prevailing winds and currents, and other potential factors could be useful in determining whether an attack on a particular facility presents enough of a security threat to warrant a requirement for enhanced security measures. Finally, we could analyze existing security measures and take them into consideration to determine the marginal TWIC utility, as suggested by the HSI Report.

    The goals of the additional study would be to prevent situations where electronic TWIC inspection requirements would provide little or no protection and, conversely, to capture situations where the existing Risk Group A may not cover the full range of necessary facilities. As an example, a 1,000 lb. propane tank remotely located in a large facility away from a population center may have a relatively low risk of causing a TSI. That same propane tank located in a small facility in an urban environment may have a much higher risk of causing a TSI, and therefore may warrant designation of the facility as Risk Group A. The current asset categorization methodology used by the Coast Guard cannot make such distinctions.

    We believe that a 3-year delay period is needed to allow time for the Coast Guard to attain and analyze data from individual MTSA facilities that contain hazardous chemicals, and implement electronic TWIC inspection for those facilities that would benefit from electronic TWIC inspection requirements. The first 18 months of the delay would be dedicated to physical analysis of individual facilities, during which we would develop the specific data entry requirements for field inspectors, analyze data from facility inspections, and, potentially, develop a new risk methodology based on that analysis. After the data entry requirements are established, Coast Guard inspectors would incorporate any additional data gathering as part of the annual or spot inspection of each facility. As data are gathered, they would be entered into and analyzed through a risk analysis tool to score for operational risks. This process would require several months to collate and analyze data to determine the risk values of MTSA facilities with regard to electronic TWIC inspection, verify whether the new risk values coincide with previous parameters of Risk Group A, and determine which facilities have the highest risk of a TSI.

    Based on the information collected and analyzed during the first half of the proposed 3-year delay period, we would take one of two next steps. If the new data indicates that the risk groupings in the TWIC Reader final rule were appropriate, we would not make any changes to the existing requirements for electronic TWIC inspection, and would publish a document in the Federal Register explaining the results of our new data and analysis. If, on the other hand, the data suggest that there is a different and preferable way to implement requirements for electronic TWIC inspection, and the revised Coast Guard risk analysis suggests that additional or fewer facilities not included in the TWIC Reader final rule's risk analysis should be covered, we would use the remaining time of the proposed 3-year delay period to conduct a rulemaking using the new information, including the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking to allow for a public comment period.

    During the proposed delay period, facilities that receive large passenger vessels and facilities that transfer bulk CDC to or from a vessel will be required to implement electronic TWIC inspection. We believe that, unlike situations where CDC is not transferred to or from a vessel, these two categories of facilities present a clear risk of a TSI. Facilities that transfer CDCs to or from a vessel typically transfer large quantities. Similarly, large passenger facilities present an inherent risk of a TSI. Unlike the scenarios described above involving bulk CDC, the loss of human life that could occur as a result of an attack at a large passenger facility is not related to the location of the facility (e.g., near or far from a population center), because the lives would be lost at the facility itself. For these reasons, the August 23, 2018, implementation date of the TWIC Reader final rule continues to be appropriate for these classes of facilities. We also note that the petitioners referred to above did not request that the electronic TWIC inspection requirements be delayed for these categories of facilities.

    VI. Regulatory Analysis

    This proposed rule would delay implementation of the TWIC Reader final rule by 3 years, until August 23, 2021, for two types of Risk Group A facilities: (1) Those that handle CDCs in bulk, but do not transfer CDCs to or from a vessel, and (2) those that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the vessel. Other facilities and vessels would still be required to comply with the TWIC Reader final rule by August 23, 2018.

    Below, we provide an updated Regulatory Analysis of the TWIC Reader final rule that presents the impacts of delaying the effective date of the final rule for the two types of Risk Group A facilities defined in the preceding paragraph. For this updated analysis, we estimated the impact of delaying the final rule by calculating the 10-year cost of this proposed rule, where only certain facilities will incur costs starting in year one and other facilities will incur no costs in the first 3 years, and compare it to the 10-year cost presented in the Regulatory Analysis for the TWIC Reader final rule. We then calculated the difference between the two costs to estimate the impact of this proposed rule. To properly compare the costs and benefits of this proposed rule and the TWIC Reader final rule, we first updated the costs of the final rule from 2012 dollars to 2016 dollars.

    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 costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed it under that Order. It requires an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866. Because this proposed rule would delay the implementation of the TWIC Reader final rule by only 3 years (until August 23, 2021) for facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during that vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the vessel, we did not revise our fundamental methodologies or key assumptions for the TWIC Reader final rule Regulatory Analysis.47

    47 Available in the docket, docket number USCG-2007-28915-0231.

    In the 2016 final rule Regulatory Analysis, we estimated that 525 facilities and 1 vessel out of the MTSA-regulated entities (13,825 vessels and more than 3,270 facilities) will have to comply with the final rule's electronic TWIC inspection requirements using MSRAM's risk-based tiered approach.48 Using data from MSRAM, we estimate that this proposed rule would delay the implementation of the final rule for 122 of the 525 affected Risk Group A facilities by 3 years, while the remaining 403 facilities and 1 vessel would have to implement the final rule requirements by August 23, 2018. These 122 facilities handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel. This proposed rule would also apply to facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer the bulk CDC to or from the vessel. We did not include these facilities in our MSRAM risk analysis for the final rule or in the final rule Regulatory Analysis. Therefore, we cannot determine the number of these facilities at this time, and we did not include them in our cost estimates for this proposed rule. We updated our final rule cost estimates from 2012 to 2016 based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).49 The GDP deflator is a measure of the change in price of domestic goods and services purchased by consumers, businesses, and the government.

    48 See Table 2.8 on page 26 of the TWIC Reader final rule Regulatory Analysis for the estimate of 525 facilities, and Table 2.1 on page 23 for the estimate of 1 vessel.

    49 For consistency across rulemaking analyses we are using the annual Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (BEA National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) Table 1.1.9) values updated in March 2017. See page 9. https://faq.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2017/04%20April/0417_selected_nipa_tables.pdf.

    Table 1 summarizes the costs and benefits of the TWIC Reader final rule as well as this proposed rule, which would delay the final rule. We do not anticipate any new costs to industry if the final rule is implemented, because this proposed rule would not change the applicability of the 2016 final rule. This proposed rule would result in no other changes to the final rule. The impact to the one affected vessel, along with the qualitative costs and benefits, remain the same. Because this proposed rule would delay the implementation of the final rule by 3 years for 122 facilities, it would result in cost savings to both industry and the government of $8.1 million (discounted at 7 percent) over a 10-year period of analysis ($162.9 million minus $154.8 million). At a 7-percent discount rate, we estimate the total annualized cost savings to be $1.2 million ($23.2 million minus $22.0 million). Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimated the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule to be $0.552 million in 2016 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.

    Table 1—Summary of Costs Saving and Change in Benefits: Final Rule and NPRM To Delay the Final Rule Category TWIC Reader final rule
  • (2016 $)
  • Proposed rule to delay final rule
  • (2016 $)
  • Applicability High-risk MTSA-regulated facilities and high-risk MTSA-regulated vessels with greater than 20 TWIC-holding crew Same as in final rule except the facilities and vessels handling bulk CDC, but not transferring it to or from the vessel. Affected Population 1 vessel No change from final rule. 525 facilities (to comply by Aug. 23, 2018) 122 facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel (to comply by Aug. 23, 2021). The proposed rule would also apply to facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during that vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the vessel. However, the number of these facilities cannot be determined at this time and will not be known until after an additional study is conducted to improve the risk methodology and determine the new risk groups to comply by August 23, 2021. Costs to Industry and Government ($ millions, 7% discount rate) * Industry: $23.2 (annualized)
  • Government: $0.014 (annualized)
  • Both: $23.2 (annualized)
  • Industry: $162.8 (10-year)
  • Industry: $22.0 (annualized).
  • Government: $0.013 (annualized).
  • Both: $22.0 (annualized)
  • Industry: $154.7 (10-year)
  • Government: $0.097 (10-year) Both: $154.8 (10-year). Both: $162.9 (10-year) Government: $0.092 (10-year). Change in Costs (Qualitative) Time to retrieve or replace lost PINs for use with TWICs The proposed rule would delay the cost to retrieve or replace lost PINs for use with TWICs for the facilities with delayed implementation. Change in Benefits (Qualitative) Enhanced access control and security at U.S. maritime facilities and on board U.S.-flagged vessels Delaying enhanced access control and security for the facilities with delayed implementation. Reduction of human error when checking identification and manning access points Delaying the reduction of human error when checking identification and manning access points for the facilities with delayed implementation. * The TWIC Reader final rule Regulatory Analysis estimated an annualized cost to industry of $21.9 million (at a 7-percent discount rate), and a 10-year cost of $153.7 million (at a 7-percent discount rate) in 2012 dollars. For the purposes of this analysis, all costs are presented in 2016 dollars and are updated using annual GDP deflator data from the BEA. The annualized total industry cost of $21.9 million in 2012 dollars is now $23.2 million in 2016 dollars and the 10-year cost of $153.7 million is now $162.8 million in 2016 dollars.
    Methodology Final Rule Costs Inflated to 2016 Dollars

    As shown in table 1, we updated the annualized cost of the 2016 final rule from 2012 dollars to 2016 dollars (over a 10-year period), which is approximately $23.2 million at a 7-percent discount rate. We performed this update to compare them to this proposed rule's total industry costs on the same basis.

    To do this, we used an inflation factor from the annual GDP deflator data . We calculated the inflation factor of 1.059 by dividing the annual 2016 index number (111.445) by the annual 2012 index number (105.214).

    We then applied this inflation factor to the costs for vessels and additional costs, which include additional delay costs, travel costs, and the cost to replace TWIC readers that fail (Table 4.38 of the final rule RA). These inflated costs are shown in table 2.

    Table 2—Comparison of Total Cost for Vessels and Additional Costs in 2012 Dollars and 2016 Dollars Under 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule [Millions] Year Vessel 2012 $ 2016 $ Additional costs 2012 $ 2016 $ 1 $0.021 $0.022 $4.21 $4.46 2 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 3 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 4 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 5 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 6 0.018 0.019 4.21 4.46 7 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 8 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 9 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 10 0.0036 0.0038 4.21 4.46 Total 0.068 0.072 42.10 44.59

    For facilities, we applied this inflation factor to the total cost-by-cost component (table 4.17 of the final rule RA) because the proposed rule would apply only to some of these cost elements. Facility costs include capital costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs. Capital costs consist of the cost to purchase and install TWIC readers, as well as the cost to fully replace TWIC readers 5 years after the original installation. Maintenance costs account for the costs to maintain TWIC readers every year after the original installation. Operational costs include costs that occur only at the time of the TWIC reader installation, such as those for amending security plans, creating a recordkeeping system, and initial training. Operational costs also include ongoing costs, such as those for keeping and maintaining records, downloading the canceled card list, and ongoing annual training. Table 3 presents a comparison of the facility costs in 2012 and 2016 dollars, as well as an estimate of the total number of facilities complying with the regulation each year.

    Table 3—Comparison of Total Cost for Facilities in 2012 Dollars and 2016 Dollars Under 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule [Millions] Year Number
  • of new
  • facilities
  • Total
  • number
  • of facilities
  • Capital costs 2012 $ 2016 $ Maintenance costs 2012 $ 2016 $ Operational costs 2012 $ 2016 $ Undiscounted total 2012 $ 2016 $
    1 263 263 $49.49 $52.41 $0 $0 $1.99 $2.10 $51.47 $54.51 2 262 525 49.49 52.41 0.99 1.05 2.16 2.29 52.64 55.74 3 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 4 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 5 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 6 0 525 9.87 10.45 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 13.18 13.96 7 0 525 9.87 10.45 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 13.18 13.96 8 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 9 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 10 0 525 0 0 1.97 2.09 1.34 1.42 3.31 3.51 Total 118.71 125.72 16.78 17.77 14.84 15.72 150.33 159.20

    Table 4 summarizes the total costs to industry of the final rule in 2016 dollars. We estimated the annualized cost to be $23.2 million at a 7-percent discount rate.

    Table 4—Total Industry Cost Under 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule [Millions, 2016 dollars] Year Facility Vessel Additional
  • costs *
  • Undiscounted 7% 3%
    1 $54.51 $0.022 $4.46 $58.99 $55.13 $57.27 2 55.74 0.0038 4.46 60.20 52.58 56.75 3 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 6.50 7.29 4 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 6.08 7.08 5 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 5.68 6.87 6 13.96 0.019 4.46 18.44 12.28 15.44 7 13.96 0.0038 4.46 18.42 11.47 14.98 8 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 4.64 6.29 9 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 4.33 6.11 10 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 4.05 5.93 Total 159.20 0.072 44.59 203.86 162.76 184.01 Annualized 23.17 21.57 * These costs include additional delay, travel, and TWIC replacement costs due to TWIC failures. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
    Proposed Rule Costs

    This proposed rule would delay the effective date of the final rule by 3 years (until August 23, 2021) for 122 facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and an unestimated number of facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from the vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. To allow for a consistent comparison between the baseline estimates and the costs of this proposed rule, we maintain the assumption that 50 percent of facilities will comply each year of the implementation period. Therefore, we expect that 50 percent of the 403 facilities unaffected by the delayed implementation will comply in year 1 (202 facilities), and the remaining 50 percent will comply in year 2 (201 facilities). For the 122 facilities with the 3-year implementation delay, we assume that 50 percent will comply in year 3 (61 facilities), and 50 percent will comply in year 4 (61 facilities).

    The costs are separated into three categories: Capital costs, maintenance costs, and operating costs. To estimate the capital costs in a given year, we multiplied the total baseline capital costs for all facilities by the percentage of facilities incurring costs in a given year.50 Because maintenance costs are not incurred until the year after the TWIC readers are installed, we calculated the proposed rule maintenance costs in a given year by multiplying the total baseline costs for all facilities by the percentage of facilities complying in the previous year.51 We estimated operational costs in a similar manner, multiplying total operational costs by the percentage of facilities complying in a given year.52 Table 5 presents the total cost to facilities under the proposed rule.

    50 We calculated the total initial baseline capital costs for TWIC installation for all facilities by adding the baseline capital costs presented in table 3 for years 1 and 2 ($52.41 million + $52.41 million = $104.81 million). We calculated the total baseline capital costs for replacing TWIC readers 5 years after the original installation by adding the baseline capital costs presented in table 3 for years 6 and 7 ($10.45 million + $10.45 million = $20.90 million). We then multiplied these numbers by the percentage of facilities incurring the cost in a given year. For example, in year 1, a total of 202 facilities are expected to incur capital costs, for a total industry cost of $40.33 million ($104.81 million × (202 facilities/525 facilities) = $40.33 million).

    51 The total initial baseline maintenance costs for TWIC readers, $2.09 million, is found in year 3 of table 3, as this is the first year that all facilities will incur maintenance costs under the baseline. To estimate maintenance costs, we multiplied the percentage of facilities incurring the cost in a given year by the total costs. Because maintenance costs are not incurred until the year after the TWIC reader is installed, the total number of facilities incurring the cost is equal to the total number of complying facilities in the previous year. For example, we calculated year 2 costs as follows: $2.09 million × (202 facilities/525 facilities) = $0.80 million.

    52 We calculated total operational costs by adding the baseline operational costs in years 1 and 2 as presented in table 3 ($2.10 million + $2.29 million = $4.39 million). However, this total includes a $0.187 million in costs for ongoing recordkeeping and training which do not occur the first year a facility installs a TWIC reader. Therefore, the total initial operational cost to industry is $4.206 million ($4.39 million−$0.187 million = $4.206 million). We then multiplied the total cost by the percentage of new facilities complying in a given year. We also accounted for ongoing costs to industry, which we calculated by multiplying the total ongoing operational costs of $1.416 million per year (see year 3 of table 3) by the percentage of facilities incurring ongoing costs. For example, in year 2, we calculated the total initial costs to be $1.61 million ($4.206 million × (201 facilities/525 facilities)), and we calculated the total ongoing costs to be $0.545 million ($1.416 million × (202 facilities/525 facilities)), for a total cost of $2.16 million ($1.610 million + $0.545 million). The $1.416 million ongoing cost includes not only the $0.187 million in ongoing training and recordkeeping costs, but also the cost to update the canceled card list annually.

    Table 5—Total Cost for Facilities From Partially Delaying the Effective Date of Final Rule [Millions 2016 dollars] Year Number of
  • new facilities
  • Total number
  • of facilities
  • Capital
  • costs
  • Maintenance
  • costs
  • Operational
  • costs
  • Undiscounted
  • total
  • 1 202 202 $40.33 $0 $1.62 $41.95 2 201 403 40.13 0.80 2.16 43.09 3 61 464 12.18 1.60 1.58 15.36 4 61 525 12.18 1.85 1.74 15.77 5 0 525 0 2.09 1.42 3.51 6 0 525 8.04 2.09 1.42 11.55 7 0 525 8.00 2.09 1.42 11.51 8 0 525 2.43 2.09 1.42 5.93 9 0 525 2.43 2.09 1.42 5.93 10 0 525 0 2.09 1.42 3.51 Total 125.72 16.80 15.58 158.10 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 6 summarizes the total costs to industry of this proposed rule, which would delay the TWIC Reader final rule, in 2016 dollars.53 This proposed rule would not impact the compliance schedule to vessels. Therefore, these costs remain unchanged from the baseline. We calculated the additional costs by multiplying the totals in table 2 by the percentage of facilities complying within a given year and phasing them in in 2 years. Over 10 years, we estimate the annualized cost to industry to be $22.03 million at a 7-percent discount rate.

    Table 6—Total Industry Cost Under the Proposed Rule Partially Delaying the Effective Date of the 2016 Final Rule [Millions, 2016 dollars] Year Facility Vessel Additional
  • costs *
  • Undiscounted 7% 3%
    1 $41.95 $0.022 $1.73 $43.70 $40.84 $42.43 2 43.09 0.0038 3.41 46.50 40.62 43.83 3 15.36 0.0038 3.94 19.30 15.75 17.66 4 15.77 0.0038 4.46 20.23 15.43 17.97 5 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 5.68 6.87 6 11.55 0.019 4.46 16.03 10.68 13.42 7 11.51 0.0038 4.46 15.97 9.95 12.99 8 5.93 0.0038 4.46 10.40 6.05 8.21 9 5.93 0.0038 4.46 10.40 5.66 7.97 10 3.51 0.0038 4.46 7.97 4.05 5.93 Total 158.10 0.072 40.29 198.46 154.71 177.28 Annualized 22.03 20.78 * These costs include additional delay, travel, and TWIC replacement costs due to TWIC failures. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 7 presents the estimated change in total costs to industry from delaying the implementation of the TWIC Reader final rule by 3 years (until August 23, 2021) for facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from the vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. We estimated an annualized cost savings to industry of $1.15 million at a 7-percent discount rate.

    Table 7—Total Change in Industry Cost From the Final Rule to the NPRM Partially Delaying the Effective Date of Final Rule [Millions, 2016 dollars] Total
  • 10-year cost
  • (not
  • discounted)
  • Total 10-year cost
  • (discounted)
  • 7% 3% Annualized
  • cost
  • 7% 3%
    TWIC Reader Final Rule $203.86 $162.76 $184.01 $23.17 $21.57 NPRM to Delay Final Rule by 3 years 198.46 154.71 177.28 22.03 20.78 Change (5.40) (8.05) (6.73) (1.15) (0.79)
    Qualitative Costs

    Qualitative costs are as shown in table 1. This proposed rule would delay the cost to retrieve or replace lost PINs for use with TWICs for the facilities with delayed implementation.

    Government Costs

    We expect that this proposed rule would also generate a cost savings to the government from delaying the review of the revised security plans for 122 Risk Group A facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC. There is no change in cost to the government resulting from TWIC inspections, because inspections are already required under MTSA and the TWIC reader requirements do not modify these requirements. As such, there is no additional cost to the government

    To estimate the cost to the government we followed the same approach as the industry cost analysis and adjusted the cost estimate presented in the final rule Regulatory Analysis from 2012 dollars to 2016 dollars. For the government analysis, we used the fully loaded 2016 wage rate for an E-5 level staff member, $51 per hour, from Commandant Instruction 7310.1R: Reimbursable Standard Rates, in place of the 2012 wage of $49 per hour.54 We then followed the calculations outlined on page 72 of the final rule Regulatory Analysis to estimate a government cost of $53,550 in the first 2 years ($51 × 4 hours per review × 262.5 plans). Table 8 presents the annualized baseline government costs of $13,785 at a 7-percent discount rate.

    54 Because the Coast Guard is not delaying the implementation schedule for vessels, the proposed rule would have no impact on the costs associated with vessel security plans, and, therefore, we did not include them in this Regulatory Analysis.

    Table 8—Total Government Cost Under 2016 TWIC Reader Final Rule [2016 dollars] Year Cost of FSP 7% 3% 1 $53,550 $50,047 $51,990 2 53,550 46,773 50,476 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Total 107,100 96,819 102,466 Annualized 13,785 12,012

    Table 9 presents the government cost under the proposed rule. We estimated the annualized government cost to be $13,047 at a 7-percent discount rate. To estimate government costs in year 1 and year 2, we used the same approach as the baseline cost estimates.55

    55 We calculated the total cost in year 1 as 4 hours × $51 × 202 FSPs; the total cost in year 2 as 4 hours × $51 × 201 FSP; and the total cost in years 3 and 4 as 4 hours × $51 × 61 FSPs.

    Table 9—Total Government Cost Under the NPRM Partially Delaying the Effective Date of the 2016 Final Rule, Risk Group A [2016 dollars] Year Cost of FSP 7% 3% 1 $41,208 $38,512 $40,008 2 41,004 33,471 38,650 3 12,444 10,158 11,388 4 12,444 9,493 11,056 5 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Total 107,100 91,635 101,102 Annualized 13,047 11,852

    Table 10 presents the estimated change in government costs from delaying the implementation of the TWIC Reader final rule by 3 years (until August 23, 2021) for facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from the vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. We estimated an annualized cost savings to the government of $738 at a 7-percent discount rate.

    Table 10—Total Change in Government Cost From the Final Rule to the NPRM Delaying the Effective Date of Final Rule [2016 dollars] Total cost
  • (not discounted)
  • Total cost
  • (discounted)
  • 7% 3% Annualized
  • cost
  • 7% 3%
    TWIC Reader Final Rule $107,100 $96,819 $102,466 $13,785 $12,012 NPRM to Delay Final Rule by 3 years 107,100 91,635 101,102 13,047 11,852 Change 0.0 (5,184.3) (1,364.0) (738.1) (159.9)

    Using a perpetual period of analysis, we estimated the total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule to be $0.552 million in 2016 dollars, using a 7-percent discount rate.

    Change in Benefits

    As noted, this proposed rule would delay the effective date of the TWIC reader requirement for two categories of facilities: (1) Facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel (to comply by Aug. 23, 2021), and (2) facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but do not transfer bulk CDC to or from the vessel during that vessel-to-facility interface. The facilities for which the TWIC Reader final rule would be delayed will not realize the enhanced benefits of electronic inspection, such as ensuring that only individuals who hold valid TWICs are granted unescorted access to secure areas, enhanced verification of personal identity, and a reduction in potential vulnerability by establishing earlier the intent of perpetrators who attempt to bypass or thwart the TWIC readers, until August 23, 2021.

    Summary of Cost Savings Under Executive Order 13771

    We do not anticipate any new costs to the industry and government if this proposed rule is implemented and the effective date of the TWIC Reader final rule is delayed by 3 years. Therefore, this proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. Table 11 summarizes the cost savings of this rule by comparing and subtracting the costs of this proposed rule from the TWIC Reader final rule costs. Because this proposed rule would delay the implementation of the final rule by 3 years for 122 facilities, it would result in cost savings of $8.1 million for industry, $0.005 million for government, and $8.1 million total (all discounted at 7 percent) over a 10-year period of analysis. At a 7-percent discount rate, we estimate the annualized cost savings to be $1.15 million to the industry, $0.0007 to the government, and $1.15 million total. Using a perpetual period of analysis, we found total annualized cost savings of the proposed rule to be $0.552 million to industry and the government.

    Table 11—Summary of Costs Savings Under Executive Order 13771: Final Rule and NPRM To Delay the Effective Date of the Final Rule Category Cost savings of this NPRM
  • (millions 2016$)
  • Costs to Industry, Government and Total ($ millions, 7% discount rate) Industry: $8.050 (10-year).
  • Government: $0.005 (10-year).
  • Total: $8.055 (10-year). Industry: $1.146 (annualized). Government: $0.0007 (annualized). Total: $1.147 (annualized). Industry: $0.522 (perpetual). Government: $0.00017 (perpetual). Total: $0.522 (perpetual).
    Alternatives

    One regulatory alternative to this proposed rule is for the Coast Guard to take no action. Under this alternative, the TWIC Reader final rule would become effective on August 23, 2018, and all 122 facilities we identified in our final rule Regulatory Analysis, in addition to the unknown number of facilities, would be expected to comply with the final rule. These entities would be required to implement the requirements for the electronic inspection of TWICs and would incur the costs we estimated in our final rule Regulatory Analysis unless a waiver was granted by the Coast Guard.

    Another alternative the Coast Guard considered was a waiver approach. However, because we currently lack a comprehensive risk analysis on the level of individualized facilities, we do not believe this approach maximizes benefits. In the absence of a new comprehensive risk analysis, the Coast Guard might issue blanket waivers that include facilities that may indeed warrant the additional security of electronic inspection. For example, take 2 facilities with a 5,000 gallon tank of a CDC each. The tank in the first facility is placed near enough to the perimeter fence in a populated area that, if the tank explodes, it would kill enough people to cause a TSI and therefore should require electronic TWIC inspection. That same tank on the other facility is located away from the water in an isolated area within the MTSA footprint (not near a population). If it explodes it does not cause a TSI and therefore should not need to conduct electronic TWIC inspection. If the Coast Guard issued a blanket waiver for those facilities with a storage tank of CDC with 5,000 gallons or less, then we would not be properly implementing these requirements to mitigate the risks as intended.

    We rejected both alternatives (`no action' and `waiver approach') because they do not address our need to conduct a comprehensive risk analysis at the individual facility level to determine whether or not those 122 facilities and an unknown number of facilities would be required to comply with the final rule after August 23, 2018, and also develop a consistent methodology that would form the rationale for Coast Guard when issuing waivers.

    B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposes to delay the effective date of the TWIC Reader final rule (August 23, 2018) by 3 years, until August 23, 2021, for facilities that handle bulk CDC, but do not transfer it to or from a vessel, and facilities that receive vessels carrying bulk CDC but, during that vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer it to or from the vessel. These facilities will experience a cost savings. Therefore, we estimate that this proposed rule would provide cost savings to 122 facilities.

    Given this information, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this proposed 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 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this NPRM. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    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).

    D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    E. Federalism

    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 proposed rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.

    This proposed rule would delay the implementation of existing regulations that create a risk-based set of security measures for MTSA-regulated facilities. Based on this analysis, each facility is classified according to its risk level, which then determines whether the facility will be required to conduct electronic TWIC inspection. As this proposed rule would not impose any new requirements, but simply delay the implementation of existing requirements, it would not have a preemptive impact. Please refer to the Coast Guard's federalism analysis in the final rule entitled “Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)—Reader Requirements,” (81 FR 57652, 57706) for additional information.

    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, States and local governments have traditionally shared certain regulatory jurisdiction over waterfront facilities. Therefore, MTSA standards contained in 33 CFR part 105 (Maritime security: Facilities) are not preemptive of State or local law or regulations that do not conflict with them (i.e., they would either actually conflict or would frustrate an overriding Federal need for uniformity).

    The Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

    F. 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 million (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we discuss the effects of this NPRM elsewhere in this preamble.

    G. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).

    H. Civil Justice Reform

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

    I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because although it is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action.

    L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section of this preamble. This proposed rule would be categorically excluded under paragraph L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01(series). Paragraph L54 pertains to regulations that are editorial or procedural. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 105

    Maritime security, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 105 as follows:

    PART 105—MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 105 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 70103; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend § 105.253, as proposed to be added August 23, 2018 at 81 FR 57712, by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 105.253 Risk Group classifications for facilities.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Beginning August 23, 2018: Facilities that receive vessels certificated to carry more than 1,000 passengers.

    (2) Beginning August 23, 2018: Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous Cargoes (CDC) in bulk and transfer such cargoes from or to a vessel.

    (3) Beginning August 23, 2021: Facilities that handle CDC in bulk, but do not transfer it from or to a vessel.

    (4) Beginning August 23, 2021: Facilities that receive vessels carrying CDC in bulk but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not transfer it from or to the vessel.

    Dated: June 15, 2018. Karl L. Schultz, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13345 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1118] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations for Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent water anchorage grounds by establishing a new, deep-water anchorage ground and relocating an existing anchorage ground near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Maritime infrastructure improvements and growth in both size and volume of vessel traffic entering the port, including large and deep-draft vessels have prompted this proposed rulemaking to ensure that the Hampton Roads Anchorage Grounds continue to safely and effectively support current and future deep-draft vessel anchorage demands. We moved the proposed locations of the anchorage grounds in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) further offshore than the potential locations we identified in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) we published in 2016. We did so based on our review and analysis of public comments on the ANPRM and the results of an environmental study referenced in our preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration for this NPRM. We propose to establish an Anchorage R that is further offshore of Cape Charles, VA, and to relocate the existing Anchorage Q (Quarantine Anchorage) south of its current location to a more secluded location on the southern Chesapeake Bay. The intended effect of this proposed rulemaking is to protect the environment, facilitate the safe navigation of maritime commerce and national defense assets, and more safely and effectively support commercial vessel anchoring requirements on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 17, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will hold several public meetings to allow the public the opportunity to provide comment. The first public meeting will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E Plume Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. Two public meetings will be held on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at Cape Charles Civic Center, 500 Tazwell Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the first meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and the second meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email CDR Ken Kostecki, Sector Hampton Roads Prevention Chief, 757-668-5536, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations AIS Automated Information System ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOD Department of Defense DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MD Maryland NM Nautical Miles § Section NPRM Notice of proposed rule-making PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act U.S.C. United States Code VA Virginia II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 19, 2016, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of proposed rule-making (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (81 FR 22939) to solicit public comments on amending certain anchorage regulations in Hampton Roads for the possible creation of a new anchorage in the lower Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles, VA. We received 35 comment letters in response to the ANPRM. On June 27, 2016, we published a 45-day extension and announced two public meetings (81 FR 41487). On August 16, 2016, we announced one additional meeting and reopened the comment period (81 FR 54531). We scheduled the meetings to receive comments on the ANRPM to allow for greater public involvement. The meetings were held in—

    • Norfolk, VA, on July 19, 2016;

    • Melfa, VA, on July 20, 2016; and

    • Cape Charles, VA, on August 17, 2016.

    At the three public meetings, we heard from 20 speakers and we received a total of 35 individual comment letters. On December 16, 2016, the Coast Guard issued a news release to inform the public that a review of comments and the environmental study would be conducted. In November 2017, the Coast Guard completed its environmental review. In January 2018, the Center for Disease Control, the U.S. Navy Fleet Forces Command, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic provided comments identifying and addressing adverse impacts from the proposed anchorage establishment.

    The purpose of this NPRM is to solicit comments on proposed rulemaking for establishing a federal commercial anchorage ground, Anchorage R, 3 nautical miles (NM) west of Cape Charles, VA and relocating the existing quarantine anchorage ground currently off Cape Charles, VA to a more secluded location in the lower Chesapeake Bay that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Island, VA. With the increasing trend of larger and deeper-draft ships calling within Virginia and Maryland, our efforts to improve navigation safety of both national defense and commercial vessels and to protect the environment can be accomplished by providing an anchorage of adequate size, depth and capacity.

    The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 33 CFR 1.05-1, DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.

    III. Discussion of Comments on ANRPM

    This section provides a detailed discussion of the public comments received during the ANPRM's comment period and public meeting. We received 35 comment letters in response to the ANPRM. In addition, we hosted three public meetings to provide another forum for obtaining public feedback on the ANRPM.

    Twenty-three comments were received from the public meetings. Comments submitted to the online docket and received at the public meeting aligned into five categories: Environmental concerns, local economy and tourism, safety and security compliance concerns, view shed concerns, and anchorage proponent. Copies of the public meeting sign-in sheets and written comments received are available for viewing in the public docket for this rulemaking. Commenters represented a wide range of individuals and entities, including State and local government officials, port authorities, representatives of affected industries, such as maritime, port, and other facilities, and private citizens. The comments received from these parties helped to inform the proposal in this NPRM.

    1. Environmental Concerns

    We received 22 comments opposing the anchorage location due to environmental concerns, such as light and noise pollution and potential vessel discharge. In the ANPRM, we inquired about the possible establishment of a deep-water anchorage ground west of Cape Charles, VA on the Chesapeake Bay. These comments on the ANPRM combined with the results of our environmental study caused us to move the anchorages we are proposing in this NPRM further offshore. The Coast Guard has prepared a preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for this NPRM and has made a preliminary determination that the proposed Anchorage R and new Quarantine Anchorage do not cumulatively or individually have a significant effect on the human environment.

    Also, we noted that there are existing laws and regulations in place to govern behavior of mariners and vessels related to these concerns about the release of pollutants. In terms of the discharge of pollutants, our regulations in 33 CFR part 151 and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships implement provisions of the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships and subject violators to penalties. Also, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972, (33 U.S.C. 1221, 1223, 1228, 1232 et seq.) and PWSA-implementing regulations help us ensure vessel compliance with all applicable standards, vessel operating requirements, vessel conditions for entry into port and enforcement provisions. In addition, 46 U.S.C. subtitle II, part B, specifically 3305, 3307, and 3714, authorize and call for merchant vessel inspections and examinations. Foreign-flagged vessels are subject to Port State Control examinations to ensure compliance with applicable marine pollution, sewage, waste, and safety and security laws and regulations. Additionally, under current COTP procedures, Sector Hampton Roads has instituted a random and unannounced spot check program for any vessel, foreign or U.S. flagged, anchored off of Cape Charles to ensure regulatory compliance.

    Under 33 CFR 110.168(c)(8) and (9), the COTP may prescribe specific conditions for vessels preventing them from being in a dead ship status, (that is, control unavailable for normal operations) while in an anchorage ground, without prior approval of the COTP. Under § 160.216 of this chapter, vessels experiencing casualties, such as main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment malfunction, or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, must immediately notify the Coast Guard COTP. Under § 160.111 of this chapter, the Coast Guard COTP may direct a vessel to depart the anchorage during periods of severe weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety. During these adverse weather conditions, under § 110.168(c)(8) and (9) of this chapter the vessel operator in an anchorage ground must comply with all severe weather precautionary measures directed by the COTP to include but not limited to having additional anchors ready for letting go and standing a continuous and live anchor watch.

    To further enhance the safety of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, the Quarantine Anchorage was relocated to a more secluded location to provide an additional layer of protection should a hazardous condition exist onboard the vessel.

    2. Local Economy and Tourism

    Sixteen comments received were opposed to the anchorage due to the proximity to the shore and its impact to the commercial and recreational boaters that use the Cape Charles City Channel, also known as the Cherrystone Inlet Channel. In this NPRM, the Coast Guard shifted the anchorage 3 NM from the coastline and into deeper water keeping Cherry Stone Channel Inlet, connected to Cape Charles, VA, open to workboats, fishing vessels, and recreational boats transiting this inlet to support the local economy and tourism. Also, by moving the anchorage north of an existing regulated navigation area, 33 CFR 165.501, this will direct vessels to no longer routinely anchor offshore Bulters Bluff, Kiptopeke State Park Beach, Jackspot at the Sunset Beach and Chesapeake Bay Resort and Beach Club but instead to use a dedicated anchorage ground. This will move the lights from ships anchored there further offshore.

    Although boaters would be allowed to fish in the proposed anchorage ground, we would strongly discourage crab pot fishing as we would around any places vessels anchor because lines may get caught or cut by the anchors and propellers of vessels anchoring. Mariners deciding to fish in the anchorage ground would do so at the risk of their lines or other fishing gear getting snagged or cut by anchor lines or propellers. Fishing vessels would also need to comply with the provisions outlined in the Navigation Rules of the Road (see 33 CFR part 83).

    An additional commenter opposed the anchorage contemplated in the ANPRM requesting that if the ships could not anchor closer to Norfolk than they should anchor at sea until they are called to port. The Coast Guard cannot direct vessels to anchor greater than 12 NM offshore or to stay at sea where they could become exposed to unsafe environmental weather conditions. However, in this NPRM, the proposed anchorage is being shifted further west from Cape Charles, VA and will now be regulated, enhancing the overall safety and security of both vessels and the public.

    3. Safety and Security Compliance Concerns

    Ten comments were received regarding vessel safety and crewmember security. Under 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, in general, U.S. vessels in commercial service and foreign vessels entering port must provide a Notice of Arrival to the Coast Guard. The vessel's Notice of Arrival is vetted by numerous federal agencies to ensure compliance with applicable safety and security laws prior to the vessel and its crews entering U.S. waters. Speaking specifically to foreign crewmembers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screen and provide escort protocol for those individuals who are seeking to go ashore. All crewmembers must remain onboard the vessel unless clearance from CBP has been obtained prior to going ashore.

    4. View From Shore Concerns

    A total of six comments were received opposing the anchorage due to the negative impact anchored vessels could have on the view from shore and diminished property values. The Coast Guard considered these comments to find an alternate anchorage area. Based on exposure to weather, tug and barge traffic density, and navigational safety concerns for areas west of Chesapeake Channel due to drafts between 25 feet and 35 feet with numerous shoals, the proposed alternative areas were considered unsafe for deep draft vessels to anchor. To mitigate the issues associated with the view shed, the Coast Guard moved the anchorage to 3 NM offshore vice the original 1.5 NM and as far west as 500 yards from the Chesapeake Channel. Directly east of Cape Charles heading north towards the Cherry Stone Camp Grounds, the anchorage gets progressively narrower to reduce the overall number of vessels offshore that would be viewed on the horizon.

    5. Anchorage Proponent

    Three responses were received in support of a new, deep-water anchorage due to the growing maritime infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With the support of the anchorage, there were also recommendations to review the existing anchorages within the lower Chesapeake Bay, to maintain the original anchorage proposal, and to expand the boundaries of the anchorage proposal. The existing anchorages will not be reviewed for this rulemaking. The need to adjust the anchorage to include deep water to the north of the proposed area was suggested and incorporated into this adjusted proposal. Various mariner subject matter experts were consulted to ensure navigation safety of both anchored vessels and vessels transiting near the proposed Anchorage R and the proposed Quarantine Anchorage. With limited availability of a deep draft anchorage in the existing naval anchorages, this anchorage proposal is anticipated to enhance the navigation safety of the port and more safely and effectively support commercial vessel anchoring requirements on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.

    IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a new Anchorage R and relocate the existing Quarantine Anchorage. This proposal reflects our consideration of all comments received from the ANPRM and the Record of Environmental Consideration. We believe this will more effectively establish a new deep-water anchorage ground for commercial vessels to support the new and projected growth in maritime commerce vessel traffic throughout the Port of Virginia. The approximate depths of the proposed new Anchorage R will be located in naturally deep water with charted depths between 25 and 101 feet. The average depth of the northern half of the anchorage is between 45 and 101 feet. The average depth of the southern half of the anchorage is between 25 and 45 feet.

    The 7.9 NM long eastern boundary of the proposed Anchorage R is located 3 NM to the west of landside Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The southernmost boundary is 3.9 NM, and runs parallel with, and 500 yards north of the existing Regulated Navigation Area (33 CFR 165.501) connected along the SE to S coordinates listed in the proposed regulatory language below. The western boundary of the anchorage grounds runs parallel along, and no less than 500 yards east of York Spit Channel for 13.9 NM to include the 11.2 NM between lighted buoy 24 and lighted buoy 38 and then continues to the northeast for 2.7 NM north of lighted buoy 38, connected along the listed S, SW and NW coordinates. The final northern most boundary is 0.6 NM connected by the listed NW and NE coordinates.

    The Coast Guard proposes moving the existing Quarantine Anchorage (Anchorage Q), from the current location 3.5 NM to the west of landside of Cape Charles, VA, and east of York Spit Channel between lighted buoys 36 to 38, relocating it 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA. The new location runs 625 yards west of York Spit Channel between buoys 16 and 18. The eastern boundary of proposed Anchorage Q runs parallel to York Spit Channel for 2.2 NM, connected by the NE and SE coordinates as outlined in the proposed regulatory language. The southernmost boundary is 1.3 NM from the emergency restricted area outside the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, connected by the listed SE and SW coordinates. The westernmost boundary is 2.2 NM, connected by the listed SW and NW coordinates. The northernmost boundary is 450 yards southwest of York River Entrance Channel and runs for 1.3 NM, connected by the listed NW and NE coordinates.

    The regulatory text we are proposing, including the coordinates mention above, appears at the end of this document. You may find a drawing of the proposed anchorage grounds in the docket. Look for Illustration of Contemplated Anchorage “R” and “Quarantine” Anchorage.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and historical vessel traffic data pertaining to the proposed anchorage locations. The regulation would ensure approximately 18 square miles of anchorage grounds are designated to provide a necessary commercial deep draft anchorage and enhance the navigational safety of large naval and commercial vessels transiting within the lower Chesapeake Bay. In reviewing historical Automated Information System (AIS) track line data of vessel transits, the proposed Anchorages Quarantine and R areas are safe locations for vessels to anchor in a minimally trafficked section of the Chesapeake Bay while maintaining a more appropriate safe distance from shore.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. The towns and communities along the western coast of Eastern Shore of Virginia have an economy based on tourism and numerous small entities and businesses. The anchorage will regulate and move vessels who are currently anchoring in the general vicinity away from the shore and beaches, lessening impacts these small entities may currently experience.

    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 explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1 (series) OM, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amending the regulations for Hampton Roads and adjacent water anchorages by establishing an anchorage, Anchorage R, 3 NM west of Cape Charles, VA and relocating the existing Quarantine Anchorage, Anchorage Q, to a more secluded position that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA. Normally, such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraphs L59(a) and L59(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    We plan to hold three public meetings to receive oral comments on this NPRM, one in Norfolk, VA and two in Cape Charles, VA. The first public meeting will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. Two public meetings will be held on July 10, 2018 at Cape Charles Civic Center, 500 Tazwell Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the first meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and the second meeting will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C., 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department Homeland Security Delegation No 0170.1.

    2. In § 110.168, add introductory text in paragraph (a), revise paragraph (a)(6), and add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:
    § 110.168 Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters.

    (a) Anchorage Grounds. All coordinates in this section for anchorage grounds are based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    (6) Anchorage Q. Quarantine Anchorage. The waters bound by a line connecting the following points:

    Latitude Longitude 37°05′40″ N 076°08′12″ W 37°05′40″ N 076°07′19″ W 37°03′46″ N 076°05′58″ W 37°03′46″ N 076°06′51″ W

    (7) Anchorage R. The waters all within the Chesapeake Bay, bound by a line connecting the following points:

    Latitude Longitude 37°19′10″ N 076°05′00″ W 37°12′00″ N 076°05′00″ W 37°09′08″ N 076°08′19″ W 37°11′23″ N 076°08′49″ W 37°19′10″ N 076°05′46″ W
    Dated: June 8, 2018. Meredith Austin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13439 Filed 6-19-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0304; FRL-9979-70—Region 3] Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Allegheny County Health Department, Withdrawal of Section 112(l) Delegation Authority for the Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) has completed the regulatory process for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident prevention regulations, and EPA is proposing to modify amendments indicating that ACHD does not have delegated authority to implement and enforce the regulatory requirements. EPA is also notifying the public that each facility subject to the previously approved ACHD delegated chemical accident prevention program is required to maintain continuous compliance with applicable requirements. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0304 at https://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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Cate Opila, (215) 814-2041, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes EPA to approve of State, and local, rules and programs to be implemented and enforced in place of certain CAA requirements, including the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68 (Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations). EPA promulgated the Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations (or risk management program (RMP) regulations) (RMP regulations) pursuant to CAA Section 112(r)(7). By letter dated June 15, 2001, ACHD requested delegation of authority to implement and enforce the RMP regulations for all sources, among other requests for delegation of other programs. On January 30, 2002, EPA issued a direct final rule, which became effective on April 1, 2002, approving ACHD's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce EPA's RMP regulations, which had been adopted by reference from 40 CFR part 68, for all sources within Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, subject to such regulations. See 67 FR 4363 (January 30, 2002).

    The procedures for a State, or local authority, to voluntarily withdraw from a CAA approved rule, program or portion of a rule or program are set forth at 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7). In summary, these regulations and relevant EPA guidance provide that a State, or local authority, may unilaterally and voluntarily withdraw from an approved delegated program by notifying EPA and all affected sources of its intent to withdraw and the specific requirements subject to such withdrawal. Any such withdrawal is not effective sooner than 180 days after such notification to EPA. The State, or local authority, must also provide notice and opportunity for comment to the public. To the extent that any source that is affected by the withdrawal is also subject to a CAA operating permit issued pursuant to 40 CFR part 70, the State, or local authority, must reopen and revise such permit to the extent necessary.

    II. EPA Analysis

    By letter dated July 28, 2017, ACHD notified EPA Region III of its intent to voluntarily withdraw from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the RMP regulations. By letter dated November 9, 2017, ACHD notified EPA Region III that ACHD announced a public comment period to take comment on ACHD's voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the RMP regulations. The public comment period extended from November 10, 2017 to December 10, 2017. During this public comment period, ACHD did not receive any comments in response to the public comment notification. ACHD provided all applicable facilities with written notice that ACHD is voluntarily withdrawing from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the RMP regulations set forth at 40 CFR part 68.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), ACHD has determined which facilities, located in Allegheny County, are subject to the RMP regulations and have effective CAA Title V operating permits in accordance with 40 CFR part 70. Sixteen facilities within Allegheny County have submitted risk management plans to EPA and ACHD has issued Title V operating permits to 28 currently operating facilities. ACHD Title V operating permits incorporate the RMP regulations, set forth at 40 CFR part 68, by reference. Therefore, each facility, located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, that is subject to the RMP regulations and has an effective Title V operating permit has been issued a Title V permit which includes the proper citation to any applicable RMP regulation.

    Upon a State's or local authority's voluntary withdrawal of a delegated program, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), EPA is required to publish a time for sources subject to the previously approved State, or local, rule or program to come into compliance with applicable Federal requirements. Because, as part of its previously approved delegated program, ACHD incorporated the RMP regulations by reference, there is no distinction between ACHD's previously approved delegated program for implementing the requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 68 and the applicable Federal requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 68. Furthermore, EPA's delegation of authority to implement the requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 68 to ACHD stated in relevant part: “Although ACHD has primary authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the . . . chemical accident prevention provisions, nothing shall preclude, limit, or interfere with the authority of EPA to exercise its enforcement, investigatory, and information gathering authorities concerning this part of the Act.” See 67 FR 4366 (January 30, 2002). Therefore, all facilities located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, subject to any requirement set forth at 40 CFR part 68 shall maintain continuous compliance with such requirement.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that ACHD has completed the regulatorily mandated process, set forth at 40 CFR 63.96(b)(7), for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the Chemical Accident Prevention regulations set forth at 40 CFR part 68. EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v) to indicate ACHD's withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action notifies the public that ACHD has completed the process for voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68, and the action proposes to update 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v) to indicate the withdrawal. The proposed action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state and federal 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);

    • is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant 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, this proposed rule to modify 40 CFR 63.99(a)(39)(v) to indicate ACHD's voluntary withdrawal from EPA's delegation of authority to enforce the chemical accident prevention provisions set forth at 40 CFR part 68, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the action does to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 12, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13452 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 121 Friday, June 22, 2018 Notices CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of commission telephonic business meeting.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, June 26, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting to take place by telephone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, (202) 376-8371, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public by telephone only.

    Participant Access Instructions: Listen Only, Toll Free: 1-888-601-3878, Conference ID: 656-3687. Please dial in 5-10 minutes prior to the start time.

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda II. Program Planning • Discussion and Vote on 2018 Report: An Assessment of Minority Voting Rights Access in the United States II. Adjourn Meeting Dated: June 20, 2018. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13527 Filed 6-20-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on July 25 and 26, 2018, 9:00 a.m., at Qualcomm Incorporated, 5665 Morehouse Drive, QRC Building, San Diego, California 92121. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.

    Wednesday, July 25 Open Session 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Working Group Reports 3. Old Business 4. Intro to hacking? Trends? Tools? 5. Update on Practitioner's Guide to APP 6. Update on Top 500 7. Digital TV? Implications for 5G video? 8. Industry Wassenaar Proposals for 2019 9. Clash between GDPR (EU) and 5A1j (WA) Thursday, July 26 Closed Session 10. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than July 18, 2018.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. If attending in person, forward your Name (to appear on badge), Title, Citizenship, Organization name, Organization address, Email, and Phone to Ms. Springer. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 4, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d))), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13455 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-073] Antidumping Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that common alloy aluminum sheet (aluminum sheet) from the People's Republic of China (China) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV). We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Scott or Scott Hoefke, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2657 and (202) 482-4947, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce published the notice of initiation of this LTFV investigation on December 4, 2017.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation became April 26, 2018.2 On March 29, 2018, we postponed the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2).3 On April 13, 2018, we clarified that the postponed preliminary deadline is June 15, 2018.4

    1See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 57214 (December 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    3See Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 14262 (April 3, 2018).

    4See Memorandum, “Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Correction of the Preliminary Determination Deadline,” dated April 13, 2018.

    For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and is hereby adopted by this notice.5 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    5See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is aluminum sheet from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., “scope”).7 We received scope comments from interested parties between December 18 and December 20, 2017.8 We received rebuttal scope comments from the Aluminum Association Common Alloy Sheet Trade Enforcement Working Group (the Domestic Industry) on January 3, 2018.9 Between March 2 and March 26, 2018, we received additional scope comments from interested parties,10 and on March 14, 2018, we received rebuttal scope comments from the Domestic Industry.11 Based on the comments received, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we are not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. 12

    6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    7See Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 57215.

    8See Letter from the Metal Composite Building Materials and Products Branch of China, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from of China; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations: Comments on Scope of Investigations,” dated December 18, 2017; Letter from The Beer Institute, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Scope,” dated December 18, 2017; Letter from The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, “A-570-073, C-570-074 Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value and Countervailing Duty Investigations,” dated December 18, 2017; and Letter from MAHLE Behr USA Inc., MAHLE Behr Troy Inc. and MAHLE Behr Charleston Inc., “Comments on Scope of the Investigation—Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China,” dated December 18, 2017; Letter from Can Manufactures Institute, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Scope (Case Nos. A-570-073, C-570-074),” dated December 20, 2017.

    9See Letter from the Domestic Industry, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Domestic Industry's Scope Rebuttal Comments,” dated January 3, 2018.

    10See Letter from FUJIFILM Manufacturing U.S.A., Inc. and FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation (collectively, FUJIFILM), “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Scope Exclusion Comments,” dated March 2, 2018; see also Letter from FUJIFILM, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Submission of Factual Information to Rebut, Clarify, or Correct Factual Information Submitted by the Domestic Industry,” dated March 26, 2018.

    11See Letter from the Domestic Industry, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Domestic Industry's Rebuttal to F'UJIIFILM's Scope Comments,” dated March 14, 2018.

    12See Memorandum, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Preliminary Decision Memorandum,” dated June 15, 2018.

    Methodology

    We are conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Affirmative Preliminary Determination, in Part, of Critical Circumstances

    On March 23, 2018, the Domestic Industry timely filed a critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of aluminum sheet from China.13 We preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist for Nanjie Resources Co., Limited (Nanjie), Yong Jie New Material Co., Ltd. (Yong Jie New Material), and Zhejiang Yongjie Aluminum Co., Ltd. (Yongjie Aluminum) (collectively, Yongjie Companies); Zhejiang GKO Aluminium Stock Co., Ltd. (GKO Aluminium); the companies eligible for a separate rate; and the China-wide entity. In addition, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for Henan Mingtai Al Industrial Co., Ltd. (Henan Mingtai) and Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhengzhou Mingtai) (collectively, Mingtai). For a full description of the methodology and results of our analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum and Critical Circumstances Memorandum.14

    13See Letter from the Domestic Industry, “Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Domestic Industry's Allegation of Critical Circumstances,” dated March 23, 2018.

    14See Memorandum, “Calculations for Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances,” dated June 15, 2018.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, we stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.15 Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.16

    15See Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 57217.

    16See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on the Department's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Preliminary Determination

    The preliminary weighted-average antidumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • adjusted for
  • subsidy offset
  • (percent)
  • Henan Mingtai Al Industrial Co., Ltd./Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd 17 Henan Mingtai Al Industrial Co., Ltd./Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Alcha International Holdings Limited Jiangsu Alcha Aluminium Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Alumax Composite Material (Jiangyin) Co., Ltd Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Granges Aluminum (Shanghai) Co., Ltd Granges Aluminum (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Henan Founder Beyond Industry Co., Ltd Henan Xintai Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Huafon Nikkei Aluminium Corporation Huafon Nikkei Aluminium Corporation 167.16 167.16 Jiangsu Lidao New Material Co., Ltd Henan Jinyang Luyue Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Jiangsu Lidao New Material Co., Ltd Jiangsu Zhong He Aluminum Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Jiangyin Litai Ornamental Materials Co., Ltd Jiangyin Litai Ornamental Materials Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Jiangyin New Alumax Composite Material Co. Ltd Chalco Ruimin Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd Shandong Fuhai Industrial Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Tianjin Zhongwang Aluminium Co., Ltd Tianjin Zhongwang Aluminium Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Xiamen Xiashun Aluminum Foil Co., Ltd Xiamen Xiashun Aluminum Foil Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Yantai Jintai International Trade Co., Ltd Shandong Nanshan Aluminium Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Yinbang Clad Material Co., Ltd Yinbang Clad Material Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Zhengzhou Silverstone Limited Henan Zhongyuan Aluminum Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Zhengzhou Silverstone Limited Luoyang Xinlong Aluminum Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Zhengzhou Silverstone Limited Shanghai Dongshuo Metal Trade Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 Zhengzhou Silverstone Limited Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd 167.16 167.16 China-Wide Entity 167.16 167.16
    Suspension of Liquidation

    17 We preliminarily determine that Henan Mingtai Al Industrial Co., Ltd. and Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd. are a single entity. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum, “Preliminary Affiliation and Collapsing Memorandum for Henan Mingtai Al Industrial Co., Ltd. and Zhengzhou Mingtai Industry Co., Ltd.,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of aluminum sheet from China as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) For the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is equal to the estimated weighted average dumping margin listed for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of China producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all third-country exporters of merchandise under consideration not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate is the cash deposit rate applicable to the China producer/exporter combination that supplied that third-country exporter.

    Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from Nanjie Resources Co., Limited/Yong Jie New Material Co., Ltd./Zhejiang Yongjie Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang GKO Aluminium Stock Co., Ltd.; the companies eligible for a separate rate; and the China-wide entity, as discussed above.

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all unliquidated entries of merchandise from the producer/exporter combinations identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

    The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments on the preliminary determination described above may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this proceeding.18 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.19

    18See 19 CFR 351.309(b)(2)(c)(i).

    19See 19 CFR 351.309, see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.20 This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    20See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so in writing within 30 days after the publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register.21 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a date, time, and location to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time, and location of any hearing.

    21See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Parties must file their case and rebuttal briefs, and any requests for a hearing, electronically using ACCESS.22 Electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due dates established above.23

    22See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(2)(i).

    23See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Section 351.210(e)(2) of Commerce's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    Respondents Mingtai and Yongjie Companies requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, Commerce postpone its final determination, i.e., no later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register, and that Commerce extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.24 Additionally, the Domestic Industry requested that Commerce postpone its final determination and extend the application of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.25

    24See Letter from Mingtai and Yongjie Companies, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China: Request for Postponement of Final Determination,” dated May 14, 2018.

    25See Letter from the Domestic Industry, “Common Alloy Aluminum Sheet from the People's Republic of China—Domestic Industry's Request to Extend Deadline for Final Antidumping Determination,” dated May 18, 2018.

    In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.26

    26See 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) and (e).

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: June 15, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Scope Comments VI. Scope of the Investigation VII. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures VIII. Discussion of the Methodology A. Non-Market Economy Country B. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values C. Separate Rates D. Combination Rates E. Collapsing and Affiliation F. China-Wide Entity G. Application of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences H. Date of Sale I. Comparisons to Fair Value J. Normal Value K. Factor Valuation Methodology L. Determination of the Comparison Method IX. Currency Conversion X. Adjustment Under Section 777A(F) of the Act XI. Adjustment for Countervailable Export Subsidies XII. Disclosure and Public Comment XIII. Verification XIV. Conclusion Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum common alloy sheet (common alloy sheet), which is a flat-rolled aluminum product having a thickness of 6.3 mm or less, but greater than 0.2 mm, in coils or cut-to-length, regardless of width. Common alloy sheet within the scope of this investigation includes both not clad aluminum sheet, as well as multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet. With respect to not clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is manufactured from a 1XXX-, 3XXX-, or 5XXX-series alloy as designated by the Aluminum Association. With respect to multi-alloy, clad aluminum sheet, common alloy sheet is produced from a 3XXX-series core, to which cladding layers are applied to either one or both sides of the core.

    Common alloy sheet may be made to ASTM specification B209-14, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all common alloy sheet meeting the scope description is included in the scope. Subject merchandise includes common alloy sheet that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigations if performed in the country of manufacture of the common alloy sheet.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation is aluminum can stock, which is suitable for use in the manufacture of aluminum beverage cans, lids of such cans, or tabs used to open such cans. Aluminum can stock is produced to gauges that range from 0.200 mm to 0.292 mm, and has an H-19, H-41, H-48, or H-391 temper. In addition, aluminum can stock has a lubricant applied to the flat surfaces of the can stock to facilitate its movement through machines used in the manufacture of beverage cans. Aluminum can stock is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7606.12.3045 and 7606.12.3055.

    Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set for the above.

    Common alloy sheet is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this investigation may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3030, 7606.12.3030, 7606.91.3060, 7606.91.6040, 7606.92.3060, 7606.92.6040, 7607.11.9090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13423 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-894] Certain Tapered Roller Bearings From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain tapered roller bearings (TRBs) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of investigation (POI) of April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse and Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 and (202) 482-5518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 2, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of TRBs from Korea.1 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice.2

    1See Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 4901 (February 2, 2018) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is TRBs from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) from February through April 2018, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Iljin Group 3 and Schaeffler Korea Corporation (Schaeffler) (collectively, the respondents) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.4

    3 Iljin Group is the name used for the collapsed-entity comprised of the following three affiliated companies: Bearing Art Corporation, Iljin Bearing Corporation, and Iljin Global Corporation.

    4 For discussion of our verification findings, see the following memoranda: Memorandum, “Verification of Iljin USA Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated April 24, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Schaeffler Group U.S.A., Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea,” dated April 25, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Bearing Art Corporation in the Less-than-Fair-Value Investigation of Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated May 2, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Schaeffler Korea Corporation and Schaeffler Group USA Inc., (`Schaeffler') in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea,” dated May 3, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of Bearing Art Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated May 9, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of Iljin Bearing Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated May 10, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Schaeffler Korea Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Tapered Roller Bearings from Korea,” dated May 10, 2018.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for each of the respondents. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually examined, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For the final determination, Commerce calculated the “all others” rate based on a weighted average of Iljin Group's and Schaeffler's margins using publicly-ranged quantities of their sales of subject merchandise.5

    5 With two respondents under examination, Commerce normally calculates (A) a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents weighted using each respondent's actual U.S. sale quantity; (B) a simple average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the examined respondents using each respondent's publicly-ranged U.S. sale quantities for the merchandise under consideration. Commerce then compares (B) and (C) to (A) and selects the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all-other producers and exporters. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data is available, pursuant to the above-described process, Commerce based the all-others rate on the publicly ranged sales data of the mandatory respondents. For a complete analysis of the data, see Memorandum, “Calculation of the All-Others Rate for the Final Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain Tapered Roller Bearings from the Republic of Korea,” dated June 18, 2018.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Bearing Art Corporation, Iljin Bearing Corporation, Iljin Global Corporation (collectively, Iljin Group) 8.21 Schaeffler Korea Corporation 52.44 All Others 30.25
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of TRBs from Korea, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart above.6 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of TRBs from Korea no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is certain tapered roller bearings. The scope covers all tapered roller bearings with a nominal outside cup diameter of eight inches and under, regardless of type of steel used to produce the bearing, whether of inch or metric size, and whether the tapered roller bearing is a thrust bearing or not. Certain tapered roller bearings include: Finished cup and cone assemblies entering as a set, finished cone assemblies entering separately, and finished parts (cups, cones, and tapered rollers). Certain tapered roller bearings are sold individually as a set (cup and cone assembly), as a cone assembly, as a finished cup, or packaged as a kit with one or several tapered roller bearings, a seal, and grease. The scope of the investigation includes finished rollers and finished cones that have not been assembled with rollers and a cage. Certain tapered roller bearings can be a single row or multiple rows (e.g., two- or four-row), and a cup can handle a single cone assembly or multiple cone assemblies.

    Finished cups, cones, and rollers differ from unfinished cups, cones, and rollers in that they have undergone further processing after heat treatment, including, but not limited to, final machining, grinding, and/or polishing. Mere heat treatment of a cup, cone, or roller (without any further processing after heat treatment) does not render the cup, cone, or roller a finished part for the purpose of this investigation. Finished tapered roller bearing parts are understood to mean parts which, at the time of importation, are ready for assembly (if further assembly is required) and require no further finishing or fabrication, such as grinding, lathing, machining, polishing, heat treatment, etc. Finished parts may require grease, bolting, and/or pressing as part of final assembly, and the requirement that these processes be performed, subsequent to importation, does not remove an otherwise finished tapered roller bearing from the scope.

    Tapered roller bearings that have a nominal outer cup diameter of eight inches and under that may be used in wheel hub units, rail bearings, or other housed bearings, but entered separately, are included in the scope to the same extent as described above. All tapered roller bearings meeting the written description above, and not otherwise excluded, are included, regardless of coating.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are:

    (1) Unfinished parts of tapered roller bearings (cups, cones, and tapered rollers);

    (2) cages, whether finished or unfinished;

    (3) the non-tapered roller bearing components of subject kits (e.g., grease, seal); and

    (4) tapered roller bearing wheel hub units, rail bearings, and other housed tapered roller bearings (flange, take up cartridges, and hanger units incorporating tapered rollers).

    Tapered roller bearings subject to this investigation are primarily classifiable under subheadings 8482.20.0040, 8482.20.0061, 8482.20.0070, 8482.20.0081, 8482.91.0050, 8482.99.1550, and 8482.99.1580 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).7 Parts may also enter under 8482.99.4500. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    7 Prior to July 2016, products entering under 8482.20.0061 entered under 8482.20.0060, products entering under 8482.20.0081 entered under 8482.20.0080, and products entering under 8482.99.1550 entered under 8482.99.1540.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Margin Calculations V. Discussion of the Issues 1. Allegation of a Particular Market Situation (PMS) in Korea 2. Affiliation With Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) 3. Using New Prototype Sales in the Calculation of Normal Value (NV) and U.S. Price 4. Reclassifying Certain Prototype Sales as Export Price (EP) 5. Post-Sale Price Adjustments 6. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset 7. Calculating Financial Expenses 8. Applying Partial Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Direct Material Costs 9. Unreported Home Market Sales 10. Level of Trade (LOT) and CEP Offset 11. Home Market Rebates 12. Home Market Billing Adjustments 13. U.S. Movement Expenses in Korea 14. U.S. Movement Expenses in the United States 15. U.S. Warehousing Expenses 16. Calculation of U.S. Duties 17. U.S. Billing Adjustments 18. Rebates Granted on U.S. Sales 19. Borrowing Rate for U.S. Credit Expenses 20. Classifying Certain Sales as EP 21. Calculating Financial Expenses 22. Commerce's Schedule for Submitting Case Briefs VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-13447 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-895] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. In addition, we determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to certain imports of the subject merchandise. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado or Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682 or (202) 482-3860.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 2, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of low melt PSF from Korea, in which we also postponed the final determination until June 18, 2018.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice.2

    1See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 4906 (February 2, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is low melt PSF from Korea. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice. For a discussion of changes to the scope since the Preliminary Determination, see the “Scope of the Investigation” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) from February through March 2018, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Huvis Corporation (Huvis) and Toray Chemical Korea Inc. (TCK) (collectively, the respondents) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by Huvis and TCK.3

    3 For discussion of our verification findings, see the following memoranda: Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Huvis Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated April 9, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Huvis Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated April 12, 2018; Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Toray Chemical Korea Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated April 9, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Cost Response of Toray Chemical Korea, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea,” dated April 6, 2018.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for the respondents. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    For the Preliminary Determination, Commerce found that critical circumstances did not exist for Huvis, but did with respect to imports of low melt PSF from TCK and all other companies.4 For the final determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for Huvis and exist for TCK. However, based on our analysis of import volumes, we now find that critical circumstances do not exist for “all others.” For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Critical Circumstances.” Thus, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206, we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by TCK.

    4See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 16 to 21.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all-other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. TCK is the only respondent for which Commerce calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin that is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate, and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for TCK, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Huvis Corporation 0.00 Toray Chemical Korea Inc 16.27 All Others 16.27
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of low melt PSF, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart above.5 Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Huvis is zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by Huvis will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. In such situations, Commerce applies the exclusion to the provisional measures to the producer/exporter combination that was examined in the investigation. Accordingly, Commerce is directing CBP to not suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise both exported and produced by Huvis. However, entries of shipments of subject merchandise from Huvis in any other producer/exporter combination, or by third parties that sourced subject merchandise from the excluded producer/exporter combination, are subject to the cash deposit requirements at the all-others rate.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    For entries made by TCK, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of low melt PSF from Korea which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    With regard to companies covered by the “all-others” rate, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries made by companies subject to the all-others rate of low melt PSF from Korea which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2018, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register. However, because we did not find that critical circumstances exist with regard to companies covered by the “all-others” rate, in accordance with 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of low melt PSF from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination), but before February 2, 2018, (i.e., the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register).

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of low melt PSF from Korea no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is synthetic staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a finish or dye, or not coated.

    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Critical Circumstances IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Margin Calculations VI. Discussion of the Issues Huvis 1. Major Input Rule 2. U.S. Bank Charges 3. Duty Drawback for Huvis 4. Critical Circumstances 5. Corrections Found at Verification TCK 6. Denier Range Reporting 7. U.S. Destination Reporting 8. TCK's Unpaid Sales 9. Duty Drawback Adjustment for TCK 10. General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Rate for TCK 11. Financial Expense Rate 12. TCK's Affiliated Party Inputs 13. Selling, General and Administrative (SG&A) Expense Rate for Toray International VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-13448 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-076] Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain plastic decorative ribbon from the People's Republic of China (China). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maliha Khan or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0895 or 202-482-0196, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on January 23, 2018.1 Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018.2 On March 12, 2018, Commerce postponed the deadline for the preliminary determination of the investigation to the full 130 days permitted under section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2), and the revised deadline is now May 29, 2018.3

    1See Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 3114 (January 23, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    3See Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 83 FR 10677 (March 12, 2018).

    For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.4 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Plastic Decorative Ribbon from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain plastic decorative ribbon from China. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. Commerce is currently evaluating the scope comments filed by the interested parties. Commerce intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding the scope of the AD and CVD investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation, which is currently due no later than July 30, 2018, unless postponed. The preliminary scope decision will be placed on the record of both the AD and CVD investigations, and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment prior to the final CVD determination.

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that confers a benefit on the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to our requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce established rates for Joynice Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. (Joynice) and Seng San Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Seng Sen) (the two individually investigated exporters/producers of the subject merchandise that participated in this investigation), and for Santa's Collection Shaoxing Co., Ltd. (which is assigned a rate based on AFA) as well as an all-others rate.

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(A) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, Commerce applies an “all-others” rate. The all-others rate is normally calculated by weight averaging the subsidy rates of the companies selected for individual examination with those companies' export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, excluding any zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    In this investigation, Commerce calculated individual countervailable subsidy rates for Joynice and Seng Sen that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Because we do not have publicly ranged data from all company respondents with which to calculate the all-others rate using a weighted-average of the individual estimated subsidy rates, we calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents.

    Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Joynice Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd 14.27 Seng San Enterprises Co., Ltd 12.81 Santa's Collection Shaoxing Co., Ltd 94.67 All-Others 13.54

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.9 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Commerce intends to set a separate briefing schedule pertaining to scope issues when it issues the preliminary scope memorandum in this investigation.

    9See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Parties are reminded that briefs and hearing requests are to be filed electronically using ACCESS and that electronically filed documents must be received successfully in their entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If Commerce's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after Commerce's final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 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 Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain plastic decorative ribbon having a width (measured at the narrowest span of the ribbon) of less than or equal to four (4) inches in actual measurement, including but not limited to ribbon wound onto itself; a spool, a core or a tube (with or without flanges); attached to a card or strip; wound into a keg- or egg-shaped configuration; made into bows, bow-like items, or other shapes or configurations; and whether or not packaged or labeled for retail sale. The subject merchandise is typically made of substrates of polypropylene, but may be made in whole or in part of any type of plastic, including without limitation, plastic derived from petroleum products and plastic derived from cellulose products. Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the word “ribbon” used in the singular includes the plural and the plural “ribbons” includes the singular.

    The subject merchandise includes ribbons comprised of one or more layers of substrates made, in whole or in part, of plastics adhered to each other, regardless of the method used to adhere the layers together, including without limitation, ribbons comprised of layers of substrates adhered to each other through a lamination process. Subject merchandise also includes ribbons comprised of (a) one or more layers of substrates made, in whole or in part, of plastics adhered to (b) one or more layers of substrates made, in whole or in part, of non-plastic materials, including, without limitation, substrates made, in whole or in part, of fabric.

    The ribbons subject to this investigation may be of any color or combination of colors (including without limitation, ribbons that are transparent, translucent or opaque) and may or may not bear words or images, including without limitation, those of a holiday motif. The subject merchandise includes ribbons with embellishments and/or treatments, including, without limitation, ribbons that are printed, hot-stamped, coated, laminated, flocked, crimped, die-cut, embossed (or that otherwise have impressed designs, images, words or patterns), and ribbons with holographic, metallic, glitter or iridescent finishes.

    Subject merchandise includes “pull-bows” an assemblage of ribbons connected to one another, folded flat, and equipped with a means to form such ribbons into the shape of a bow by pulling on a length of material affixed to such assemblage, and “pre-notched” bows, an assemblage of notched ribbon loops arranged one inside the other with the notches in alignment and affixed to each other where notched, and which the end user forms into a bow by separating and spreading the loops circularly around the notches, which form the center of the bow. Subject merchandise includes ribbons that are packaged with non-subject merchandise, including ensembles that include ribbons and other products, such as gift wrap, gift bags, gift tags and/or other gift packaging products. The ribbons are covered by the scope of this investigation; the “other products” (i.e., the other, non-subject merchandise included in the ensemble) are not covered by the scope of this investigation.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are the following: (1) Ribbons formed exclusively by weaving plastic threads together; (2) ribbons that have metal wire in, on, or along the entirety of each of the longitudinal edges of the ribbon; (3) ribbons with an adhesive coating covering the entire span between the longitudinal edges of the ribbon for the entire length of the ribbon; (4) ribbon formed into a bow without a tab or other means for attaching the bow to an object using adhesives, where the bow has: (a) An outer layer that is either flocked or made of fabric, and (b) a flexible metal wire at the base that is suitable for attaching the bow to a Christmas tree or other object by twist-tying; (5) elastic ribbons, meaning ribbons that elongate when stretched and return to their original dimension when the stretching load is removed; (6) ribbons affixed as a decorative detail to non-subject merchandise, such as a gift bag, gift box, gift tin, greeting card or plush toy, or affixed (including by tying) as a decorative detail to packaging containing non-subject merchandise; (7) ribbons that are (a) affixed to non-subject merchandise as a working component of such non-subject merchandise, such as where the ribbon comprises a book marker, bag cinch, or part of an identity card holder, or (b) affixed (including by tying) to non-subject merchandise as a working component that holds or packages such non-subject merchandise or attaches packaging or labeling to such non-subject merchandise, such as a “belly band” around a pair of pajamas, a pair of socks or a blanket; (8) imitation raffia made of plastics having a thickness not more than one (1) mil when measured in an unfolded/untwisted state; and (9) ribbons in the form of bows having a diameter of less than seven-eighths (7/8) of an inch, or having a diameter of more than 16 inches, based on actual measurement. For purposes of this exclusion, the diameter of a bow is equal to the diameter of the smallest circular ring through which the bow will pass without compressing the bow.

    Further, excluded from the scope of the antidumping duty investigation are any products covered by the existing antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET Film) from the People's Republic of China (China). See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, the People's Republic of China and the United Arab Emirates: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for the United Arab Emirates, 73 FR 66595 (November 10, 2008).

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 3920.20.0015 and 3926.40.0010.

    Merchandise covered by this investigation also may enter under subheadings 3920.10.0000; 3920.20.0055; 3920.30.0000; 3920.43.5000; 3920.49.0000; 3920.62.0050; 3920.62.0090; 3920.69.0000; 3921.90.1100; 3921.90.1500; 3921.90.1910; 3921.90.1950; 3921.90.4010; 3921.90.4090; 3926.90.9996; 5404.90.0000; 9505.90.4000; 4601.99.9000; 4602.90.0000; 5609.00.3000; 5609.00.4000; and 6307.90.9889. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Respondent Selection VI. Injury Test VII. Application of the CVD Law to Imports From China VIII. Diversification of China's Economy IX. Subsidies Valuation X. Benchmarks XI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences XII. Analysis of Programs XIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate XIV. ITC Notification XV. Disclosure and Public Comment XVI. Verification XVII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-13429 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-079] Cast Iron Soil Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Walker at (202) 482-0413, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 15, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of cast iron soil pipe from the People's Republic of China (China).1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than July 5, 2018.

    1See Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 83 FR 8053 (February 23, 2018).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determinations

    Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioners 2 submit a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

    2 The petitioners are the Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute and its individual members, AB&I Foundry, Charlotte Pipe & Foundry, and Tyler Pipe.

    On June 1, 2018, the petitioners submitted a timely request that Commerce postpone the preliminary determination in this LTFV investigation.3 The petitioners stated that they request postponement to, among other things, permit Commerce to issue and receive supplemental questionnaires prior to the preliminary determination.4

    3See the petitioners' letter, “Cast Iron Soil Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Request to Extend the Preliminary Determination,” dated June 1, 2018.

    4Id.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which this investigation was initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determination no later than August 24, 2018. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: June 15, 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. 2018-13422 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-861] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from Taiwan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) April 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Janz or Ajay Menon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972 or (202) 482-1993.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 2, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination of sales at LTFV of low melt PSF from Taiwan, in which we also postponed the final determination until June 18, 2018.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by this notice.2

    1See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 4903 (February 2, 2018) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is low melt PSF from Taiwan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice. For a discussion of changes to the scope since the Preliminary Determination, see the “Scope of the Investigation” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case brief submitted by the petitioner in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) in January and February 2018, we conducted verification of the sales and cost information submitted by Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC) for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by FENC.3

    3 For discussion of our verification findings, see the following memoranda: Memorandum, “Verification of Far Eastern New Century Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated March 14, 2018; and Memorandum, “Verification of the Sales Response of Far Eastern New Century Corporation (FENC) in the Antidumping Investigation of Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan,” dated April 2, 2018.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for FENC. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on facts otherwise available under section 776 of the Act. Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin for FENC, the only individually investigated exporter/producer in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated dumping margin is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for FENC, as referenced in the “Final Determination” section below.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Far eastern new century corporation 49.93 All Others 49.93
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed in this final determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of low melt polyester staple fiber, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Further, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the chart above.4

    4See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of low melt PSF from Taiwan no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is synthetic staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a finish or dye, or not coated.

    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Margin Calculations V. Discussion of the Issues 1. Treatment of FENC's Corrections Presented Prior to Verification 2. Revising FENC's Major Input Adjustment to Reflect Cost Verification Findings VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-13449 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Marine Mammal Protection Act Annual Supplemental Data Report AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Michael Asaro at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan), developed under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, seeks to enable the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to reduce injuries and deaths of large whales, especially right whales, due to incidental entanglement in United States commercial fishing gear. In order to develop fair and effective management measures, the Take Reduction Team (Team) requires comprehensive data on when, where, and how fixed gear vessels fish. While subsets of Plan's vessels report on aspects of their operations, the available data form an incomplete picture. NMFS recognizes that forthcoming changes under select fishery management plans (e.g., the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan) may eventually introduce gear and activity reporting of the type requested. Until those requirements are implemented, however, operators of commercial fishing vessels deploying fixed gear (traps, pots, and gillnets) are requested to complete this annual supplemental data collection form, regardless of fishing location, permit type, or the provision of similar information to other Federal and state agencies. This information will allow NMFS to focus further risk reduction measures in certain areas or fisheries, where needed, to meet the goals of the Plan.

    II. Method of Collection

    This information will initially be collected using a paper form, which respondents will be asked to return by mail. Respondents can also scan and email, or fax their submission. An electronic form will be developed for future iterations.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (new information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,604 respondents.

    Estimated Time per Response: 45 minutes per year.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,453 hours per year.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.60 per person per year, or $2,762.40 per year in reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13466 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Hazard Simplification WFO-Partner Focus Groups AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before August 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to NOAA National Weather Service Analyze, Forecast, and Support Office, Elliott Jacks, Chief of Forecast Services Division, 301-427-9351, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for a new information collection.

    In response to public law H.R. 353, Section 406, NWS conducted several social science engagement activities to assess the current Watch, Warning, and Advisory (WWA) system. There was strong agreement for small adjustments to the current system and some support for an entirely new system. To further explore an alternative system, a public survey was conducted to test knowledge of the current system and a series of “prototypes” as an alternative to WWA. Drawing upon these results, NWS plans to conduct focus groups with its forecasters and partners to explore the opportunities and challenges of implementing a new alerting system.

    II. Method of Collection

    Focus groups will be conducted in person and/or by webinar.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10-15 people per focus group, 3-4 focus groups per location, 6 locations (180-360 Total respondents).

    Estimated Time per Response: Each focus group will last 3-4 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,450.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13467 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KE-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2017-0027] Recall Effectiveness: Announcement of Request for Information Regarding the Use of Direct Notice and Targeted Notices During Recalls AGENCY:

    U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    To advance the concepts discussed during the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) Recall Effectiveness Workshop in 2017, the CPSC announces a Request for Information (RFI) from stakeholders to provide information critical to future work on Recall Effectiveness. CPSC asks for responses on a series of questions addressing direct notice and other forms of customer notice. The information provided will help inform CPSC's efforts to continue improving the effectiveness of recalls.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0027, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above; however, please do not use this method if you are submitting confidential business information or other sensitive information that should not be made public.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: www.regulations.gov. If you submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public, do not submit it electronically, but send it in hard copy to the Office of the Secretary at the address indicated above. See also section III, below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2017-0027, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph F. Williams, Compliance Officer, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Hwy., Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-7585; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Recall Effectiveness Workshop

    On July 25, 2017, the CPSC hosted a Recall Effectiveness Workshop. The goal of the workshop was to explore and develop proactive measures that CPSC and stakeholders can undertake to improve recall effectiveness. Seventy-nine external stakeholders attended the workshop, including various retailers, manufacturers, law firms, consumer interest groups, third party recall contractors and consultants, testing laboratories, and other interested parties. CPSC staff facilitated an open discussion among these participants about ways to increase recall effectiveness and also gathered feedback on how CPSC can potentially improve its recall efforts. Additional details may be found here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recall-Effectiveness.

    B. Recall Effectiveness Report

    Following the workshop, CPSC staff prepared a report, which was released on February 22, 2018. The report stated that the CPSC staff intends to prioritize stakeholders' suggestions to:

    • Collaborate on ways to improve direct notice to consumers; and

    • collaborate with firms to explore how technology can be used to enhance recall response.

    The report explained the reason for this focus:

    “Direct notice recalls have proven to be the most effective recalls. We intend to work with consumer and industry stakeholders on registration methods or other improvements (e.g., retailer opt-in at checkout, home voice assistants, photo texting, QR codes, and incentives for product registration) to promote direct notice recalls.”

    “We will continue to explore how technology can be used to enhance recall response in appropriate cases, including enhancing firms' recall marketing strategies, use of social media, and improved methods for in-store communication. We intend to identify and share examples of future recall marketing strategies that are innovative and/or successful.”

    The full Recall Effectiveness Report may be found here: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Recall_Effectiveness_Workshop_Report-2018.pdf?R1VyLltrl8M_id.2vkAklHoUZjaSCab.

    II. Information Requested

    The CPSC seeks information on current methods and systems that recalling firms use to assist in providing direct notice to consumers. The CPSC also requests certain information regarding the use of targeted notices to reach consumers who may have purchased a recalled product.

    A. Direct Notice

    1. What methods are available for directly notifying consumers of recalls (e.g., mail, email, text)?

    2. If you use direct notice for recalls, what response rates do you achieve? Do the response rates differ significantly for different recalls? If so, what factors appear to influence the response rates? Do you follow up with additional direct notice if a customer does not respond? How often? For how long?

    3. Do other companies or your company use all available direct notice methods during every product recall? If not, why not?

    4. Do e-commerce retailers/third party platforms use direct notice capabilities for every recall of products sold through their site/platform? If not, why not?

    5. What costs are associated with direct notice? How do costs vary for different forms of notice? What other factors affect cost?

    6. What challenges and barriers prevent companies from pursuing or improving direct notice? Please address:

    a. Legal barriers b. Technological challenges c. Privacy challenges d. Security challenges e. Cost challenges f. Other challenges

    7. What technologies exist or are being developed that would assist a recalling company to acquire direct contact information or capabilities to contact purchasers and/or issue direct notice for recalls?

    8. What methods do you use to collect direct contact information at the point of sale?

    9. Does your attempt to collect direct contact information depend on the item(s) purchased? Is the cost of the item at all relevant?

    10. Have you worked with a third-party entity (e.g., credit card or payment processing companies, product registries, data collection platforms, online retailers) to identify or contact consumers who previously purchased a product subject to a recall? If so, how, and with what types of companies did you work?

    11. For retailers that have information on their customers (e.g., retail credit/debit cards, loyalty program, membership registration), can such information be accessed through purchase data to provide direct notice?

    12. What would make direct notice more effective (e.g., notice type, number of touches)?

    13. How can the CPSC help facilitate direct notice to consumers?

    14. What can we learn from marketing efforts (e.g., needed resources, personnel qualifications, channels of communication, evaluating messaging effectiveness, etc.) to better reach consumers for recall purposes?

    B. Product Registration

    1. What product registration methods are used today to collect consumer information and track purchased/registered products?

    2. Why do companies offer product registration? Are product registration programs due to mandatory requirements by CPSC or other agencies, or for other reasons?

    3. What are participation rates in product registration? Do you see significant differences in the registration rates for different types of products?

    4. What type of information is collected during product registration?

    5. Is product registration more or less successful if marketing information is not collected at the same time? Why?

    6. What methods are in use or are being developed to increase responses to product registration (e.g., warranties, incentives, voice assistant technology)?

    7. When does the personal information collected for product registration get used for marketing purposes?

    a. Are opt-in/opt-out choices provided to consumers for marketing? Describe.

    8. What technologies exist or are being developed to advance product registration?

    9. What would make product registration more effective?

    10. How can the CPSC help facilitate or improve product registration rates?

    11. Has the ability to register a product online or electronically had an effect on the volume of consumer response to product registration?

    C. Targeted Notice

    A targeted notice is a notice aimed at a particular group of likely affected consumers, but not at a known purchaser or consumer like direct notice (e.g., targeted search engine ads, paid social media, micro marketing, such as internet radio and targeted use of voice assistant technologies).

    1. Have you used any of the targeted methods listed above or others to reach consumers? What success have you seen?

    2. Do companies use the information previously collected to assist in issuing targeted recall notices when announcing recalls?

    3. What costs are generally associated with targeted methods, including targeted search engine ads, paid social media, micro marketing, such as internet radio, and voice assistant technologies?

    4. What challenges and barriers prevent companies from pursuing targeted notices for recalls? Please address:

    a. Legal barriers b. Technological challenges c. Privacy challenges d. Security challenges e. Cost challenges f. Other challenges

    5. What technologies exist or are being developed that can improve the effectiveness of targeted notice?

    6. How can the CPSC help facilitate new or improved targeted recall notice campaigns?

    7. Are there other forms of recall notice that are worth exploring for more discussion?

    D. For Consumers and Other Stakeholders

    1. Would you be interested in working directly with the CPSC to explore best practices for implementing product registration, improving current direct notice capabilities, or developing targeted notices?

    2. Are there data showing what forms, types, and frequency of messaging consumers are most likely to respond to in direct and targeted notices?

    3. How can companies incentivize consumers to register their products or to provide the information needed for direct notice in the event of a recall?

    4. What concerns do consumers have regarding the use of their personal information for recall notification purposes? What can firms do to overcome these concerns?

    III. Confidentiality

    All data submitted is subject to Section 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2055) and may be considered confidential, except to the extent otherwise provided by law. Please identify any portion of your submission that you believe is confidential.

    Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13388 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2018-HQ-0005] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force Personnel Center, Directorate of Airman & Family Care, Airman & Family Care Division (AFPC/DPFF), 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 21, 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 AFPC/DPFF, Airman & Family Division, 550 C Street West, ATTN: Mr. Patrick Woodworth, JBSA Randolph AFB, TX 78150, or call Mr. Patrick Woodworth at 210-565-3280.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Air Force Family Integrated Results & Statistical Tracking (AFFIRST) automated system; OMB Control Number 0701-0070.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to record demographic information on Airman & Family Readiness Center (A&FRC) customers, results of the customer's visits, determine customer needs, service plan, referrals, workshop attendance and other related A&FRC activities and services accessed by the customer. Data is used to determine the effectiveness of A&FRC activities and services (results management) as well as collect and provide return on investment data to leadership. Information is compiled for statistical reporting to bases, major commands, Headquarters United States Air Force, Department of Defense and Congress.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 56,250.

    Number of Respondents: 37,500.

    Responses per Respondent: 6.

    Annual Responses: 225,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are A&FRC customers who seek services from A&FRC. A&FRC employees enter customer demographic/service delivery information into AFFIRST per Air Force Instruction 36-3009, Airman and Family Readiness Centers, paragraphs 3.13.1-3.13.3.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13426 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID USA-2018-HQ-0014] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a modified system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is modifying its system of records notice entitled “Army Career Tracker (ACT), A0350-1b TRADOC”. The Army Career Tracker (ACT) enables Soldiers and Army civilians world-wide with career development and transition resources. ACT provides users with a more efficient and effective way to monitor their career development while allowing leaders to track and advise subordinates on personalized leadership development. As a leader development tool, it integrates data on training, education, and experiential learning from a number of source systems into one personalized and easy to use interface. ACT allows supervisors to track and advise employees on their leadership development and allows career program managers the ability to reach their geographically dispersed careerists. The Total Army Sponsorship Program is also administered through ACT. The sponsorship program provides Soldiers, Army civilians, and their families with resources to facilitate their transition and/or relocation between commands and duty assignments.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before July 23, 2018. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 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:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Army Career Tracker, initially implemented in 2011, is managed by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). It was developed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 4103, Establishment of training programs and 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army. The ACT is a career management and development tool for Army enlisted, Officer, and civilian employees. While use of ACT is required for Soldiers, it is voluntary for the Army civilian workforce. The ACT leverages existing Army systems to capture and present career management data pertaining to training, education, and job assignments; it provides unique capabilities and does not replace or eliminate any other Army system of records. The system allows users to: Search course catalogs in Army training systems to identify courses they want to add to their Individual Development Plans (IDP); create IDP for short and long term goals; map out events, decision points, and outcomes; track progress against known career benchmarks; and receive personalized advice from mentors and leadership. This easy-to-use portal, effectively charts the user's career progression, manages career development activities, and connects the individual to mentors.

    Additionally, ACT is the Army enterprise application that automates the sponsorship process for personnel relocations. The system ensures a virtual handshake between transitioning Soldiers and civilians and their designated sponsor prior to departure from the unit of current assignment. Army transitioning personnel utilize ACT to make known their sponsorship needs via the Department of the Army (DA) Form 5434, Sponsorship Program Counseling and Information Sheet, as part of the reassignment management process. The completed DA Form 5434 is transmitted to the gaining unit of assignment to ensure personnel receive information and assistance needed during their relocation. The automated and collaborative functions of the system are used to identify sponsors, send notifications, monitor status, provide reporting mechanism, and conduct individual satisfaction surveys.

    This system of records notice is being modified to include four routine uses that were omitted in the previous notice. The additional routine uses are for disclosures to: DoD contractors in the performance of the contract; to the National Archives and Records Administration for records inspection purposes; and to another Federal agency for breach mitigation and notification. In addition, the authorities were updated to include 10 U.S.C. 1056, Relocation Assistance, which is the implementing statute for Army Regulation 600-8-8, The Total Army Sponsorship Program. The categories of records was revised to clarify what information is collected on the DA Form 5434, and the description of the safeguards was expanded to address administrative and physical measures that are currently utilized to protect the system of records. All other changes to this notice are administrative in nature. The DoD is publishing the notice in its entirety to comply with current standards and formatting requirements prescribed in OMB Circular A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act.”

    The Department of the Army's notices for system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division website at http://defense.gov/privacy.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on April 27, 2018, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication Under the Privacy Act,” December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016, 81 FR 94424).

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    Army Career Tracker (ACT), A0350-1b TRADOC.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Army commands, installations, and activities. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Institute of Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Office (ATCG-NCN), 950 Jefferson Ave., Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5704.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    5 U.S.C. 4103, Establishment of training programs; 10 U.S.C. 1056, Relocation assistance programs; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Department of Defense Directive 1322.18, Military Training; Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development; AR 600-20, Army Command Policy; AR 600-8-8, The Total Army Sponsorship Program; AR 690-950, Career Management; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    Army Career Tracker (ACT) is a leadership development tool that integrates training and education into one personalized, easy-to-use website. ACT receives training, education, experiential learning, personnel, and biographical data from several Army information systems and presents a comprehensive and personalized view of Noncommissioned Officer, Officer, and Army civilian career history, course enrollment, course completion, course catalog, and professional development model information. Users can search multiple education and training resources, monitor their career development and receive personalized advice. The system allows civilian and military supervisors, and mentors to monitor the individual's goals and provide them developmental recommendations, notifications and career advice. Supervisors can view records for both their civilian and military employees.

    ACT is also used to administer the Total Army Sponsorship Program which helps Soldiers, civilian employees, and families successfully relocate into and out of their commands. Soldiers in the ranks of private through colonel (excluding Soldiers arriving at Initial Military Training and Soldiers making Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves to student detachments at long-term schools) and civilian employees through grade GS-15, undergoing a PCS move, are offered the opportunity to participate in the advance arrival sponsorship program.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Department of the Army military personnel (active duty, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve), Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps contracted cadets, and Army civilian employees.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Demographic data to include name, grade/rank/series, Social Security Number (SSN); DoD ID Number; Army Knowledge Online User Identification; primary email address; personal and duty phone numbers; service component, branch, personnel classification, military status, military occupational specialty; and unit of assignment.

    Sponsorship data to include gaining unit and arrival date; contact information while on leave (address, phone number, email address); marital status; family members' name, age, gender, relationship, identification of exceptional family member(s); and a questionnaire to determine information needs pertaining to housing preferences, employment information for spouse, pets in the household, child care needs, and local schools.

    Course and training data to include credit hours accumulated; examination and course completion status; professional development model; assignment history; student academic status; curricula, course descriptions and schedules; graduation dates; and individual goals.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The individual, DoD personnel (supervisors, mentors, training and human resources staff). Data is also extracted from: Army Knowledge Online (AKO), Integrated Total Army Personnel Database (ITAPDB), Headquarters Army Civilian Personnel System (HQ ACPERS), Defense Civilian Personnel Data System for National Guard (NG-DCPDS), Reserve Component Management System (RCMS), Army Training Requirements & Resources System (ATRRS), Army Learning Management System (ALMS), GoArmyEd, Force Management System website (FMSWEB), Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL), Partnership for Youth Success (PaYS), Soldier Fitness Tracker (SFT), and Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF).

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act if 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    a. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.

    b. To the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.

    c. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.

    d. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    e. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.

    f. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    g. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    h. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    Paper printouts and electronic storage media.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    The retrieval of records may be made by use of the individual's name, SSN, DoD ID Number, or Army Knowledge Online User Identification.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records on local training, individual goals, and sponsorship are maintained until no longer needed for conducting business, but not longer than 6 years, then destroyed. Electronic media is deleted; paper printouts are shredded or burned.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Paper and electronic records are protected in accordance with policies in DoD Manual 5200.01, Volume 4, DoD Information Security Program: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). ACT is designed where the PII is viewable only by the affected end user, their selected leader or mentor(s), Army staff, and system administrators. Access to the system is restricted to authorized personnel with Army Knowledge Online (AKO) authorization using sign-on and password, or a Common Access Card (CAC). After an end user is authenticated, they are presented data that is only relevant to them due to role-based security. System administrators are carefully selected and their assignment of their user IDs is managed and