Federal Register Vol. 83, No.123,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 123 (June 26, 2018)

Page Range29665-30029
FR Document

83_FR_123
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 29745 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 29835 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 29827 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 29838 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29736 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Special Emergency Procurement AuthorityPDF
83 FR 29788 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
83 FR 29769 - Applications for New Awards; Special Programs for Indian Children-Demonstration GrantsPDF
83 FR 29822 - Steel Racks From China; Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 29823 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
83 FR 29702 - Fluroxypyr; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 29723 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Subpart 225-1, Fuel Composition and Use-Sulfur LimitationsPDF
83 FR 29731 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 29782 - Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) ActPDF
83 FR 29784 - Call for Information on Adverse Effects of Strategies for Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 29825 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New CollectionPDF
83 FR 29785 - Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone-Call for Scientific and Policy-Relevant InformationPDF
83 FR 29706 - Ocean Dumping; Withdrawal of Designated Disposal Site; Grays Harbor, WashingtonPDF
83 FR 29691 - Previously-Incurred Costs in the WIFIA ProgramPDF
83 FR 29786 - Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter-Ecological CriteriaPDF
83 FR 29765 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29791 - Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 29790 - Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 29768 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; International Early Learning Study (IELS) 2018 Main StudyPDF
83 FR 29778 - FreedomWorks, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 29781 - Peak Hour Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 29781 - Footprint Power LLC; Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-DecisionalPDF
83 FR 29779 - American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 29766 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29837 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
83 FR 29767 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29710 - Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz BandsPDF
83 FR 29864 - 30-Day Notice of Intent To Seek Extension of Approval and Merger of Collections: Statutory Authority To Preserve Rail ServicePDF
83 FR 29741 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29716 - Certain Non-Government Attorneys Not Authorized To Participate in Examinations of Books and Witnesses as a Section 6103(n) Contractor; HearingPDF
83 FR 29776 - Basic Energy Sciences Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 29835 - Submission for OMB Review; Comments RequestPDF
83 FR 29836 - Submission for OMB Review; comments requestPDF
83 FR 29768 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan ProgramsPDF
83 FR 29792 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry: Assessing User Fees Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017PDF
83 FR 29838 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29850 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29847 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29837 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29839 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29841 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29719 - Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SCPDF
83 FR 29777 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
83 FR 29776 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
83 FR 29748 - Steel Propane Cylinders From Taiwan: Termination of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
83 FR 29824 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Automated Driving Behaviors ConsortiumPDF
83 FR 29824 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-R Consortium, Inc.PDF
83 FR 29748 - Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
83 FR 29747 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018PDF
83 FR 29764 - Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch) Prize Competition AnnouncementPDF
83 FR 29763 - Board on Coastal Engineering Research; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 29762 - Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 29684 - Safety Zone; Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NYPDF
83 FR 29721 - Safety Zone; USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships Lake Erie, Cleveland, OHPDF
83 FR 29780 - Herrin, Michael D.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 29781 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 29778 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 29813 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) GranteesPDF
83 FR 29815 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HUD Multifamily Rental Project Closing DocumentsPDF
83 FR 29686 - Safety Zone; Wine and Walleye Festival Fireworks; Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OHPDF
83 FR 29868 - Waiver Request for Aquaculture Support Operations for the 2018 Calendar Year: MILDRED 1PDF
83 FR 29866 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel PRIVATE RESERVE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 29866 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MISS SANDY RITA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 29865 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel KAT ATOMIC; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 29869 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 29867 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EAGLE; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 29782 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for South Louisiana Methanol L.P., St. James Methanol Plant in St. James Parish, LouisianaPDF
83 FR 29727 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment AreaPDF
83 FR 29814 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR); 2 Year Expenditure Deadline Extension RequestPDF
83 FR 29821 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 29767 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License; OLLI Technology Corporation dba TankaPDF
83 FR 29713 - Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity Contracts for Federal-Aid ConstructionPDF
83 FR 29687 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LAPDF
83 FR 29682 - Safety Zone; City of Erie Fourth of July Fireworks; Lake Erie, Erie, PAPDF
83 FR 29788 - FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 29863 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Petition To Classify Special Immigrant Under INA 203(b)(4) as Employee or Former Employee of the U.S. Government AbroadPDF
83 FR 29665 - Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 29843 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Concerning Updates to and Formalization of OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down PlanPDF
83 FR 29846 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhanced and New Tools for Recovery ScenariosPDF
83 FR 29802 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29804 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29805 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29801 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29802 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29802 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29805 - National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 29803 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29804 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 29828 - State of Wyoming: NRC Staff Assessment of a Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of WyomingPDF
83 FR 29744 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Wheelchair Seat Height SurveyPDF
83 FR 29827 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 29825 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29826 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 29844 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rule Governing Crowd Space DisputesPDF
83 FR 29855 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To, Among Other Things, Amend MSRB Rule G-3 To Restructure the MSRB's Current Municipal Securities Representative Qualification Examination and Harmonize Certain MSRB Qualification Requirements With FINRA RulesPDF
83 FR 29861 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702PDF
83 FR 29838 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Principal Morley Short Duration Index ETFPDF
83 FR 29842 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the Exchange's Rules Pertaining to Co-location and Direct ConnectivityPDF
83 FR 29848 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify the SPX Select Market-Maker ProgramPDF
83 FR 29840 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 (Margin Requirements for Credit Default Swaps)PDF
83 FR 29761 - Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Intent To Find That Georgia Has Satisfied All Conditions of Approval Placed on Its Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control ProgramPDF
83 FR 29762 - Market Risk Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 29667 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 29775 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program-Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table FormPDF
83 FR 29775 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance ReportPDF
83 FR 29807 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 29805 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 29834 - Duane Arnold Energy CenterPDF
83 FR 29808 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 29789 - Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
83 FR 29716 - Safety Improvement Technologies for Mobile Equipment at Surface Mines, and for Belt Conveyors at Surface and Underground MinesPDF
83 FR 29811 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship DocumentPDF
83 FR 29820 - Foreign Endangered Species; Receipt of Permit ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 29689 - Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OHPDF
83 FR 29698 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Revisions to the Permitting RulesPDF
83 FR 29694 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to PSD Permitting RulesPDF
83 FR 29779 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 29778 - American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 29850 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and BOX Options Exchange LLCPDF
83 FR 29793 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
83 FR 29796 - Proposed Standards for the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program's Quality Bonus SystemPDF
83 FR 29749 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction at the City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, AlaskaPDF
83 FR 29798 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; National Survey of Organ Donation Attitudes and Practices, OMB No. 0915-0290-Reinstatement With ChangePDF
83 FR 29742 - Nuseed Americas Inc.; Availability of a Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Draft Environmental Assessment for Canola Genetically Engineered for Altered Oil ProfilePDF
83 FR 29762 - Notice Inviting Preliminary Public Input on Transformation and Sustainability Plan; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 29800 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request Information Collection Request Title: Health Resources and Service Administration Uniform Data System, OMB No. 0915-0193-RevisionPDF
83 FR 29813 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Request for the Return of Original DocumentsPDF
83 FR 29812 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient; and Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, Form I-914 and Supplements A and BPDF
83 FR 29696 - Air Plan Approval; SC; VOC DefinitionPDF
83 FR 29672 - Safety Standard for Baby Changing ProductsPDF
83 FR 29746 - Notice of Charter Renewal of the U.S. Investment Advisory Council and Soliciting Nominations for MembersPDF
83 FR 29872 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study AreaPDF

Issue

83 123 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29741-29742 2018-13676 2018-13697
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Nuseed Americas, Inc.; Canola Genetically Engineered for Altered Oil Profile, 29742-29743 2018-13589 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Automated Driving Behaviors Consortium, 29824 2018-13674 R Consortium, Inc., 29824-29825 2018-13673 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Wheelchair Seat Height Survey, 29744-29745 2018-13625 Army Army Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, 29762-29763 2018-13667 Board on Coastal Engineering Research, 29763-29764 2018-13668 Prize Competitions: Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch), 29764-29765 2018-13669 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29745-29746 2018-13872 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Certification of Foreign Adult Victims of Human Trafficking, 29789-29790 2018-13604 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Bay Village Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH, 29689-29691 2018-13600 City of Erie Fourth of July Fireworks; Lake Erie, Erie, PA, 29682-29684 2018-13643 Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA, 29687-29689 2018-13644 Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY, 29684-29685 2018-13666 Wine and Walleye Festival Fireworks, Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OH, 29686-29687 2018-13659 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC, 29719-29721 2018-13679 USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH, 29721-29723 2018-13665 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings: Market Risk Advisory Committee, 29762 2018-13612 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Safety Standards for Baby Changing Products, 29672-29682 2018-13556 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Transformation and Sustainability Plans: Preliminary Public Input; Correction, 29762 2018-13588 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Special Emergency Procurement Authority, 29736-29740 2018-13730 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29765-29767 2018-13701 2018-13704 2018-13712
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report, 29775 2018-13609 Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs, 29768 2018-13690 International Early Learning Study 2018 Main Study, 29768-29769 2018-13709 Magnet Schools Assistance Program—Government Performance and Results Act Table Form, 29775-29776 2018-13610 Applications for New Awards: Special Programs for Indian Children—Demonstration Grants, 29769-29774 2018-13728 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Information Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29776-29777 2018-13677 Meetings: Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, 29776 2018-13693
Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29777-29778 2018-13678 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Montana; Revisions to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting Rules, 29694-29696 2018-13597 South Carolina; Volatile Organic Compounds Definition, 29696-29698 2018-13571 South Dakota; Revisions to Permitting Rules, 29698-29702 2018-13598 Ocean Dumping: Grays Harbor, WA; Withdrawal of Designated Disposal Site, 29706-29710 2018-13715 Pesticide Tolerances: Fluroxypyr, 29702-29706 2018-13724 Previously-Incurred Costs in Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program, 29691-29694 2018-13714 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York; Subpart 225-1, Fuel Composition and Use—Sulfur Limitations, 29723-29726 2018-13722 Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology in Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, 29727-29731 2018-13651 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of Omaha Lead Superfund site, 29731-29736 2018-13720 NOTICES Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development Act: Brownfields Grants, Ownership and Liability Provisions, and State and Tribal Response Programs, 29782-29783 2018-13719 Calls for Information: Adverse Effects of Strategies for Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 29784-29785 2018-13718 Calls for Scientific and Policy-Relevant Information: Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 29785-29786 2018-13716 Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for South Louisiana Methanol LP, St. James Methanol Plant in St. James Parish, LA, 29782 2018-13652 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Intent to Find that Georgia has Satisfied All Conditions of Approval, 29761-29762 2018-13613 External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessments: Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria, 29786-29788 2018-13713 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: International Aero Engines Turbofan Engines, 29665-29667 2018-13639 IFR Altitudes: Miscellaneous Amendments, 29667-29672 2018-13611 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29825 2018-13717 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands, 29710-29712 2018-13700 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Community Banking, 29788 2018-13642 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 29805-29810 2018-13605 2018-13607 2018-13608 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 29778-29782 2018-13596 2018-13662 2018-13663 Designations of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional: Footprint Power, LLC; Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations, LLC, 29781 2018-13706 Filings: American Municipal Power, Inc., 29778-29779 2018-13595 2018-13705 Herrin, Michael D., 29780-29781 2018-13664 Permit Applications: FreedomWorks, LLC, 29778-29779 2018-13708 Peak Hour Power, LLC, 29781 2018-13707 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity Contracts for Federal-aid Construction, 29713-29716 2018-13645 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 29788-29789 2018-13729 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Permit Applications: Foreign Endangered Species, 29820-29821 2018-13601 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry: Assessing User Fees under Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017, 29792-29793 2018-13688 Meetings: Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Establishment of Public Docket, 29790-29792 2018-13710 2018-13711 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Special Emergency Procurement Authority, 29736-29740 2018-13730 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Health Resources and Service Administration Uniform Data System, 29800-29801 2018-13587 National Survey of Organ Donation Attitudes and Practices, 29798-29800 2018-13590 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: List of Petitions Received, 29793-29796 2018-13593 Proposed Standards for the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program's Quality Bonus System, 29796-29798 2018-13592 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Development Block Grant Grantees, 29813-29814 2018-13661 Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery, 29814-29815 2018-13650 Multifamily Rental Project Closing Documents, 29815-29820 2018-13660 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Certain Non-Government Attorneys Not Authorized to Participate in Examinations of Books and Witnesses as Section 6103(n) Contractors; Hearing, 29716 2018-13695 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China; Partial Rescission, 29747-29748 2018-13671 Charter Renewals: U.S. Investment Advisory Council, 29746-29747 2018-13546 Determinations in Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China and Thailand, 29748-29749 2018-13672 Terminations of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Steel Propane Cylinders from Taiwan, 29748 2018-13675 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Steel Racks from China, 29822-29823 2018-13727 Complaints: Certain Powered Cover Plates, 29823-29824 2018-13726 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Surveys: Colorado, 29821-29822 2018-13649 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EAGLE, 29867-29868 2018-13653 Vessel FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, 29869 2018-13654 Vessel KAT ATOMIC, 29865-29866 2018-13655 Vessel MISS SANDY RITA, 29866 2018-13656 Vessel PRIVATE RESERVE, 29866-29867 2018-13657 Waiver Requests for Aquaculture Support Operations for 2018 Calendar Year: MILDRED 1, 29868-29869 2018-13658 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Requests for Information: Safety Improvement Technologies for Mobile Equipment at Surface Mines, and for Belt Conveyors at Surface and Underground Mines, 29716-29719 2018-13603 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Special Emergency Procurement Authority, 29736-29740 2018-13730 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29825-29827 2018-13621 2018-13622 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 29803-29805 2018-13627 2018-13628 National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 29802, 29805 2018-13629 2018-13630 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 29801-29802 2018-13632 2018-13633 National Human Genome Research Institute, 29802 2018-13631 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 29802-29803 2018-13636 National Institute on Aging, 29804-29805 2018-13634 2018-13635 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Navy Training and Testing Activities in Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area, 29872-30029 2018-13115 NOTICES Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Intent to Find that Georgia has Satisfied All Conditions of Approval, 29761-29762 2018-13613 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Construction at City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, AK, 29749-29761 2018-13591 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29827 2018-13790 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Exclusive and Partially Patent Licenses; Approvals: OLLI Technology Corp. dba Tanka, 29767-29768 2018-13647 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES License Amendment; Applications: Duane Arnold Energy Center; Withdrawal, 29834-29835 2018-13606 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 29827-29828 2018-13624 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29835 2018-13865 Proposed State Agreements: Wyoming, 29828-29834 2018-13626 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29835-29837 2018-13691 2018-13692 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 29837 2018-13702 2018-13703 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 29837-29839, 29841-29842, 29847, 29850 2018-13680 2018-13681 2018-13682 2018-13683 2018-13684 2018-13685 2018-13686 2018-13687 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 29838-29839 2018-13784 Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2: Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective Amended Plan for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities between Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 29850-29855 2018-13594 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., 29838 2018-13617 Cboe Exchange, Inc., 29844-29846, 29848-29850 2018-13615 2018-13620 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 29840-29841 2018-13614 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 29855-29861 2018-13619 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 29842-29843 2018-13616 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 29861-29863 2018-13618 Options Clearing Corp., 29843-29844, 29846-29847 2018-13637 2018-13638 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Petition to Classify Special Immigrant under INA 203(b)(4) as Employee or Former Employee of U.S. Government Abroad, 29863-29864 2018-13641 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Statutory Authority to Preserve Rail Service, 29864-29865 2018-13698 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document, 29811 2018-13602 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; Application for Immediate Family Member of T-1 Recipient; and Declaration of Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, 29812 2018-13585 Request for Return of Original Documents, 29813 2018-13586 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 29872-30029 2018-13115 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.

83 123 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0564; Product Identifier 2018-NE-23-AD; Amendment 39-19315; AD 2018-13-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain International Aero Engines (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM turbofan engines. This AD requires a one-time visual inspection of the engine fan hub for damage, and removal of parts if damage or defects are found that are outside the serviceable limits. This AD was prompted by reports of damage to the engine fan hub. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective July 11, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 11, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by August 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact International Aero Engines, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0564.

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-2018-0564; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We received information concerning damage to the engine fan hub found during an engine shop visit of an IAE PW1100G-series turbofan engine. The damage is believed to be the result of the installation of the inlet cone without using alignment pins, which might lead to bolts impacting and damaging the engine fan hub. This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained failure of the engine fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018. The SB describes procedures for performing a one-time visual inspection of the inlet cone mating face and counter weight flange on the engine fan hub assembly for surface damage. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

This AD requires a one-time visual inspection of the engine fan hub for damage, and replacement of the engine fan hub if damage or defects are found that are outside of serviceable limits.

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018, only applies to PW1100G-JM engine models in service. This AD applies to all PW1100G-JM engine models certified under type certificate E00087EN. PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D also excludes from its applicability certain serial numbered engines. We have no way to determine if these engines have been inspected and are therefore including these engines in the applicability of this AD.

Interim Action

We consider this AD interim action. An investigation to determine the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional rulemaking if final action is identified.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the compliance time is less than the time required for public comment. In addition, all engine fan hubs must be inspected, and if needed, replaced before further flight. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and compliance for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0564 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-23-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 14 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Visual inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $2,380
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-13-03 International Aero Engines: Amendment 39-19315; Docket No. FAA-2018-0564; Product Identifier 2018-NE-23-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 11, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines (IAE) PW1133G-JM, PW1133GA-JM, PW1130G-JM, PW1127G-JM, PW1127GA-JM, PW1127G1-JM, PW1124G-JM, PW1124G1-JM, and PW1122G-JM turbofan engines with serial numbers (S/Ns) up to and including S/N 770735.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of damage to the engine fan hub. We are issuing this AD to detect defects, damage, and cracks that could result in an uncontained failure of the engine fan hub. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained failure of the engine fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD:

    (1) For engines installed on an airplane, perform a visual inspection of the engine fan hub, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 1.E.(1) to 1.E.(4), of Pratt & Whitney (PW) Service Bulletin (SB) PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018.

    (2) For engines not installed on an airplane, perform a visual inspection of the engine fan hub, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 2.D.(1) to 2.D.(4), of PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018.

    (3) If the engine fan hub visual inspection reveals defects or damage to the engine fan hub that are found outside the serviceable limits specified in Table 3 in the Accomplishment Instructions of PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018, remove the engine fan hub from service and replace with a part that is eligible for installation, prior to further flight.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD if you performed the inspection before the effective date of this AD using PW SB PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Original Issue, dated May 21, 2018.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7088; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW1000G-C-72-00-0104-00A-930A-D, Issue No. 002, dated May 31, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For International Aero Engines service information identified in this AD, contact International Aero Engines, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; internet: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 19, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13639 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 95 [Docket No. 31201; Amdt. No. 540] IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

    The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Conclusion

    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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2018. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, July 19, 2018.

    1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

    2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows: Revisions to IFR Altitudes and Changeover Point [Amendment 540 effective date July 19, 2018] From To MEA MAA § 95.3000 Low Altitude RNAV Routes § 95.3225 RNAV Route T225 is Amended to Read in Part GALENA, AK VOR/DME KUHZE, AK FIX 4400 17500 From To MEA § 95.6001 Victor Routes—U.S. § 95.6064 VOR Federal Airway V64 is Amended to Read in Part SEAL BEACH, CA VORTAC *TUSTI, CA FIX 3000 *6200—MCA TUSTI, CA FIX, E BND TUSTI, CA FIX COREL, CA FIX W BND 6200 E BND 8000 COREL, CA FIX PERIS, CA FIX W BND 8000 E BND 11000 PERIS, CA FIX HEMET, CA FIX *11000 *6700—MOCA HEMET, CA FIX HAPPE, CA FIX *11000 *10200—MOCA § 95.6071 VOR Federal Airway V71 is Amended to Read in Part HOT SPRINGS, AR VOR/DME OLLAS, AR FIX *3600 *3100—MOCA OLLAS, AR FIX *HAAWK, AR FIX **4500 *10000—MCA HAAWK, AR FIX, N BND **2500—MOCA HAAWK, AR FIX HARRISON, AR VOR/DME *10000 *3700—MOCA *4000—GNSS MEA § 95.6078 VOR Federal Airway V78 is Amended to Read in Part PELLSTON, MI VORTAC ALPENA, MI VORTAC 2700 ALPENA, MI VORTAC *ZABLE, MI FIX 3000 *5000—MCA ZABLE, MI FIX, S BND BANJO, MI FIX BENNY, MI FIX *3000 *2300—MOCA BENNY, MI FIX SAGINAW, MI VOR/DME 2400 § 95.6081 VOR Federal Airway V81 is Amended to Read in Part BLACK FOREST, CO VOR/DME HOHUM, CO FIX #10000 *10000—GNSS MEA #BLACK FOREST R-330 UNUSABLE § 95.6095 VOR Federal Airway V95 is Amended to Read in Part DURANGO, CO VOR/DME ZEANS, CO FIX S BND 12300 N BND 16500 ZEANS, CO FIX LAZON, CO FIX 16500 LAZON, CO FIX POWES, CO FIX N BND 15000 S BND 16500 POWES, CO FIX BLUE MESA, CO VOR/DME S BND 16500 N BND 12800 § 95.6133 VOR Federal Airway V133 is Amended to Read in Part BARRETTS MOUNTAIN, NC VOR/DME MULBE, NC FIX S BND 5400 N BND 7200 MULBE, NC FIX *STOVE, VA FIX 7200 *11000—MCA STOVE, VA FIX, N BND STOVE, VA FIX *PINEE, WV FIX **13000 *11400—MCA PINEE, WV FIX, S BND **7000—MOCA § 95.6143 VOR Federal Airway V143 is Amended to Read in Part LYNCHBURG, VA VORTAC ELLON, VA FIX N BND 5700 S BND 3200 ELLON, VA FIX *CLYFF, VA FIX 5700 *6300—MCA CLYFF, VA FIX, N BND § 95.6154 VOR Federal Airway V154 is Amended to Read in Part *LOTTS, GA FIX SAVANNAH, GA VORTAC **3000 *9000—MRA **1800—MOCA § 95.6157 VOR Federal Airway V157 is Amended to Read in Part ALMA, GA VORTAC *LOTTS, GA FIX **10000 *9000—MRA *10000—MCA LOTTS, GA FIX, SW BND **2000—GNSS MEA § 95.6179 VOR Federal Airway V179 is Amended to Read in Part DUBLIN, GA VORTAC HUSKY, GA FIX *3000 *2200—MOCA § 95.6218 VOR Federal Airway V218 is Amended to Read in Part *BAULK, WI FIX ROCKFORD, IL VOR/DME **4000 *4000—MRA **2600—MOCA § 95.6267 VOR Federal Airway V267 is Amended to Read in Part ORLANDO, FL VORTAC PAOLA, FL FIX N BND *2800 S BND *1900 *1600—MOCA § 95.6291 VOR Federal Airway V291 is Amended to Read in Part KACEE, AZ FIX PEACH SPRINGS, AZ VOR/DME *11000 *10000—MOCA § 95.6312 VOR Federal Airway V312 is Amended to Read in Part WOODSTOWN, NJ VORTAC COYLE, NJ VORTAC 2100 § 95.6323 VOR Federal Airway V323 is Amended to Read in Part NALIZ, GA FIX WEMOB, GA FIX *3000 *2100—MOCA WEMOB, GA FIX HUSKY, GA FIX *3000 *2200—MOCA § 95.6325 VOR Federal Airway V325 is Amended to Read in Part COLUMBIA, SC VORTAC *VESTO, GA FIX 8000 *8000—MCA VESTO, GA FIX, E BND VESTO, GA FIX ATHENS, GA VOR/DME W BND 2500 E BND 8000 § 95.6361 VOR Federal Airway V361 is Amended to Read in Part MONTROSE, CO VOR/DME ICIES, CO FIX S BND 10600 N BND 15000 § 95.6402 VOR Federal Airway V402 is Amended to Read in Part PANHANDLE, TX VORTAC *BRISC, TX FIX **7000 *8000—MCA BRISC, TX FIX, NE BND **5000—MOCA BRISC, TX FIX *MITBEE, OK VORTAC **8000 *8000—MCA MITBEE, OK VORTAC, SW BND **4500—MOCA § 95.6417 VOR Federal Airway V417 is Amended to Read in Part ATHENS, GA VOR/DME COLLIERS, SC VORTAC 2500 § 95.6420 VOR Federal Airway V420 is Amended to Read in Part GAYLORD, MI VOR/DME ALPENA, MI VORTAC 3200 § 95.6421 VOR Federal Airway V421 is Amended to Read in Part DURANGO, CO VOR/DME ZEANS, CO FIX N BND 16500 S BND 12300 ZEANS, CO FIX LAZON, CO FIX 16500 LAZON, CO FIX POWES, CO FIX S BND 16500 N BND 15000 POWES, CO FIX BLUE MESA, CO VOR/DME S BND 16500 N BND 12800 § 95.6485 VOR Federal Airway V485 is Amended to Read in Part VENTURA, CA VOR/DME *HENER, CA FIX 5000 *6500—MCA HENER, CA FIX, NW BND § 95.6500 VOR Federal Airway V500 is Amended to Read in Part SOLDE, ID FIX *REAPS, ID FIX E BND **14000 W BND **17000 *15400—MCA REAPS, ID FIX, W BND **8200—MOCA § 95.6506 VOR Federal Airway V506 is Amended to Read in Part TULSA, OK VORTAC VINTA, OK FIX 2700 § 95.6512 VOR Federal Airway V512 is Amended to Read in Part HOLAN, IN FIX *SACKO, IN FIX **3500 *10000—MCA SACKO, IN FIX, E BND **2100—MOCA **3000—GNSS MEA SACKO, IN FIX LOUISVILLE, KY VORTAC 10000 LOUISVILLE, KY VORTAC *CLEGG, KY FIX 10000 *10000—MCA CLEGG, KY FIX, W BND § 95.6527 VOR Federal Airway V527 is Amended to Read in Part *HOT SPRINGS, AR VOR/DME HIDER, AR FIX SE BND 3200 NW BND 9500 *5700—MCA HOT SPRINGS, AR VOR/DME, NW BND HIDER, AR FIX ROVER, AR FIX. SE BND *5500 NW BND *9500 *3200—MOCA ROVER, AR FIX *SCRAN, AR FIX **9500 *9500—MCA SCRAN, AR FIX, SE BND **3600—MOCA SCRAN, AR FIX CASKS, AR FIX *6500 *3700—MOCA GAMPS, AR FIX BILIE, MO FIX *4000 *3200—MOCA § 95.6609 VOR Federal Airway V609 is Amended to Read in Part SAGINAW, MI VOR/DME BENNY, MI FIX 2400 BENNY, MI FIX BANJO, MI FIX *3000 *2300—MOCA BANJO, MI FIX *ZABLE, MI FIX **5000 *5000—MCA ZABLE, MI FIX, S BND **2900—MOCA ZABLE, MI FIX *RONDO, MI FIX 3200 *5000—MRA *RONDO, MI FIX PELLSTON, MI VORTAC **3200 *5000—MRA **2500—MOCA § 95.6611 VOR Federal Airway V611 is Amended to Read in Part BLACK FOREST, CO VOR/DME LUFSE, CO FIX #*10000 *10000—GNSS MEA #BLACK FOREST R-028 UNUSABLE § 95.6317 ALASKA VOR Federal Airway V317 is Amended to Read in Part ANNETTE ISLAND, AK VOR/DME GESTI, AK FIX SE BND 5000 NW BND 7000 GESTI, AK FIX LEVEL ISLAND, AK VOR/DME *7000 *5300—MOCA LEVEL ISLAND, AK VOR/DME HOODS, AK FIX *9000 *6000—MOCA HOODS, AK FIX *SISTERS ISLAND, AK VORTAC SE BND **9000 NW BND **7000 *7900—MCA SISTERS ISLAND, AK VORTAC, W BND **5500—MOCA § 95.6456 ALASKA VOR Federal Airway V456 is Amended to Read in Part GULKANA, AK VOR/DME *SANKA, AK FIX NE BND 11000 SW BND 6000 *8000—MCA SANKA, AK FIX, NE BND SANKA, AK FIX NORTHWAY, AK VORTAC *11000 *10500—MOCA § 95.6506 ALASKA VOR Federal Airway V506 is Amended to Read in Part KODIAK, AK VOR/DME BREMI, AK FIX #*12000 *9900—MOCA *10000—GNSS MEA #KODIAK R-280 UNUSABLE BYD 20NM BLO 12000 BREMI, AK FIX KING SALMON, AK VORTAC E BND 12000 W BND 5000 § 95.6406 HAWAII VOR Federal Airway V6 is Amended to Read in Part PLUMB, HI FIX MAUI, HI VORTAC 6300 § 95.6411 HAWAII VOR Federal Airway V11 is Amended to Read in Part BARBY, HI FIX *SWEEP, HI FIX **5400 *5400—MCA SWEEP, HI FIX, S BND **3000—MOCA SWEEP, HI FIX MAUI, HI VORTAC 5000 § 95.6415 HAWAII VOR Federal Airway V15 is Amended to Read in Part MAUI, HI VORTAC *BARBY, HI FIX 8400 *9800—MCA BARBY, HI FIX, E BND BARBY, HI FIX *RABAT, HI FIX **10000 *10000—MCA RABAT, HI FIX, W BND **2700—MOCA § 95.6422 HAWAII VOR Federal Airway V22 is Amended to Read in Part PLUMB, HI FIX MAUI, HI VORTAC 6300 MAUI, HI VORTAC *BARBY, HI FIX 8400 *12000—MCA BARBY, HI FIX, SE BND From To MEA MAA § 95.7001 Jet Routes § 95.7225 Jet Route J225 is Amended to Read in Part CEDAR LAKE, NJ VOR/DME KENNEDY, NY VOR/DME 18000 45000 § 95.7536 Jet Route J536 is Amended to Read in Part SISTERS ISLAND, AK VORTAC U.S. CANADIAN BORDER #21000 45000 #MEA is ESTABLISHED WITH A GAP IN NAVIGATION SIGNAL COVERAGE. Airway segment From To Changeover points Distance From § 95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point V291 is Amended to Add Changeover Point FLAGSTAFF, AZ VOR/DME PEACH SPRINGS, AZ VOR/DME 39 FLAGSTAFF V325 is Amended to Add Changeover Point ATHENS, GA VOR/DME COLUMBIA, SC VORTAC 24 ATHENS V417 is Amended to Add Changeover Point ATHENS, GA VOR/DME COLLIERS, SC VORTAC 24 ATHENS
    [FR Doc. 2018-13611 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1235 [Docket No. CPSC-2016-0023] Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to adopt consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. To comply with the CPSIA, the Commission is issuing a safety standard for baby changing products. This rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2388-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Changing Products for Domestic Use (ASTM F2388-18). In addition, this rule amends the regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include the safety standard for baby changing products in the list of Notices of Requirements (NORs).

    DATES:

    The rule will become effective on June 26, 2019. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 26, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keysha Walker, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-6820; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Statutory Authority

    Congress enacted the CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016), including the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Any standard the Commission adopts under this mandate must be substantially the same as the applicable voluntary standard, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA defines the term “durable infant or toddler product” as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years,” and the Commission identified baby changing tables as a durable infant or toddler product in the product registration card rule codified in 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(14).

    On September 29, 2016, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to incorporate by reference the then-current voluntary standard for baby changing products, ASTM F2388-16, with more stringent requirements for structural integrity, restraint system integrity, and warnings on labels and in instructional literature. 81 FR 66881. After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised the voluntary standard several times, as discussed in section V of this preamble, and published the current version of the standard, ASTM F2388-18, in March 2018.

    In this final rule, the Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F2388-18, with no modifications, as the mandatory safety standard for baby changing products. As section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA requires, CPSC staff consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this standard, largely through the ASTM standard-development process. In addition, this final rule amends the list of NORs in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for baby changing products. This rule is based on information CPSC staff provided in its briefing package, “Draft Final Rule for Baby Changing Products for Domestic Use under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act,” which is available on CPSC's website at: https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for %20Baby%20Changing%20Products %20-%20June%2013%202018.pdf?ZbvMCsfyQfLFivqHRbFWKclOordsuVeC.

    II. Product Description

    ASTM F2388-18 defines a “changing product” as “one of the following: changing table, changing table accessory, add-on changing unit, contoured changing pad.” The standard defines each of those terms, as follows:

    • A changing table is “an elevated, freestanding structure generally designed to support and retain a child with a body weight of up to 30 lb (13.6 kg) in a horizontal position for the purpose of allowing a caregiver to change the child's diaper. Changing tables may convert from or to other items of furniture, such as, but not limited to, a dresser, desk, hutch, bookshelf, or play yard, may have pull-out or drop-down changing surfaces, and may provide storage for diapers and diaper products”;

    • a changing table accessory is “an accessory that attaches to a crib or play yard designed to convert the product into a changing table typically having a rigid frame with soft fabric or mesh sides or bottom surface, or both”;

    • an add-on changing unit is “a rigid addition to or separate product used in conjunction with an item of furniture that provides barriers to prevent the infant from rolling off the product when a diaper is being changed”; and

    • a contoured changing pad is “a changing pad designed for use on an elevated surface which incorporates barriers to prevent a child from rolling off the changing surface.” 1

    1 ASTM F2388-18 defines a “changing pad” as: “a flat or contoured pad specifically designed for the purpose of changing the diaper of a child with a body weight of up to 30 lb (13.6 kg) on an elevated surface. The child is placed on the pad during the process of changing.”

    Changing tables used in public facilities, such as public restrooms, are covered by ASTM F2285, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Diaper Changing Tables for Commercial Use, and are not subject to ASTM F2388-18 or this final rule.

    Most changing tables and add-on changing units are constructed of wood; contoured changing pads often consist of synthetic-covered foam with contoured edges; and changing table accessories that attach to a play yard or crib generally are constructed of plastic or wood with a foam pad. Changing tables come in various designs, some of which include drawers, cabinets, or retractable stairs to assist children getting onto them.

    III. Market Description

    CPSC staff has identified 102 domestic firms that currently supply baby changing products to the U.S. market. Eighty-four of the firms (61 manufacturers and 23 importers or wholesalers) are small, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) standards,2 and the remaining 18 firms are large. In addition, staff identified 17 foreign firms that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market, and one additional firm for which staff lacked sufficient information to determine a location or supply source. Staff also identified numerous baby changing products that are manufactured outside the United States and bought domestically through online sales.

    2 Under SBA size standards, a baby changing product manufacturer is “small” if it has 500 or fewer employees, and an importer is “small” if it has 100 or fewer employees.

    At the time CPSC staff assessed the baby changing products market, staff identified 22 of the 61 small domestic manufacturers, and 10 of the 23 small domestic importers and wholesalers, as compliant with the ASTM standard for baby changing products (based on firms' assertions of compliance, certifications from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, or participation in the development of the ASTM changing products standard).

    IV. Incident Data A. Summary

    CPSC receives data regarding product-related injuries from several sources. One source is the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), from which CPSC can estimate, based on a probability sample, the number of injuries that are associated with specific consumer products that are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (U.S. EDs) nationwide. Other sources include reports from consumers and others through the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (which also includes some NEISS data) and reports from retailers and manufacturers through CPSC's Retailer Reporting System—CPSC refers to these sources collectively as Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System data (CPSRMS).

    For this rulemaking, CPSC staff reviewed the NEISS and CPSRMS databases for incidents involving baby changing products and children younger than 3 years old because that age corresponds with the 30-pound weight limit in the ASTM standard. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Health Statistics, Data Table of Infant Weight-for-Age Charts, http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/html_charts/wtageinf.htm (last visited Apr. 9, 2018).

    The preamble to the NPR summarized reports of incidents involving baby changing products that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, which CPSC received through CPSRMS sources. For the final rule, CPSC staff has updated this information to reflect one reported changing product incident that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, but was not included in the NPR, as well as new incidents that occurred between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017. In total, CPSC has received 188 reports of incidents involving baby changing products that occurred between January 1, 2005 and November 30, 2017. These incidents involved 7 fatalities, 31 injuries or adverse health problems, 116 incidents that did not result in injuries, and 34 incidents for which CPSC did not receive sufficient information to determine whether an injury occurred.3

    3 The NPR indicated that CPSC had received 182 reports of baby changing product-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, of which 5 were fatal, 30 reported injuries, 113 did not result in injuries, and 34 did not provide sufficient information to determine whether an injury occurred. Since the NPR, CPSC staff identified one additional fatality that occurred in 2010, and CPSC received an additional five reports of incidents that occurred between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017, of which one was fatal, one reported injuries, and three did not result in injuries.

    The preamble to the NPR also summarized NEISS estimates for baby changing product incidents that occurred between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2014. After the Commission issued the NPR, complete injury data became available for 2015 and 2016, and CPSC staff has updated this information for the final rule. Including this new data and extrapolating from the probability sample, CPSC staff estimates that there were 39,010 baby changing product-related injuries to children under 3 years old that were treated in U.S. EDs between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016. There was a statistically significant increasing linear trend for injuries associated with baby changing products over this period. Seventy-six percent of the estimated injuries involved children between 0 and 11 months old, and 94 percent of the estimated injuries involved children under 2 years old.

    B. Fatalities

    CPSC is aware of seven fatal incidents to children under 3 years old that occurred between January 1, 2005 and November 30, 2017, involving baby changing products. One death involved a 10-month-old male who was strangled by a strap hanging from a changing table accessory in a play yard while the child was in the play yard beneath. Another death involved a 3-month old female who rolled over and compressed her neck on the changing table ledge, resulting in suffocation. The remaining five reported deaths involved children sleeping on baby changing products, which is not their intended use. All of the victims in these incidents were younger than 1 year old.

    One of these incidents involved a 4-month-old male who was sleeping on a changing pad in a crib and died from positional asphyxia when his head hung over the raised side of the changing pad. Another incident involved a 3-day-old female, who died while sleeping on the changing portion of a play yard; her death was determined to be the result of mechanical asphyxia from being swaddled too tightly in a sleep sack. The remaining three sleep-related deaths involved babies (ages 6 weeks, 2 months, and 2 months) sleeping in the changing accessory portion of a play yard.

    C. Nonfatal Injuries

    The injuries and treatments reported through NEISS for 2015 and 2016 were consistent with those for 2005 through 2014, described in the NPR. In 94 percent of cases between 2005 and 2016, the patient was treated in the U.S. ED and released; in 5 percent of cases, the child was hospitalized. The most commonly injured body parts were the head (71 percent for 2005-2014; 73 percent for 2015-2016) and face (13 percent for 2005-2014; 12 percent for 2015-2016). The most common types of injuries were injuries to internal organs (50 percent for 2005-2014; 53 percent for 2015-2016), contusions and abrasions (27 percent for 2005-2014; 29 percent for 2015-2016), and fractures (9 percent for 2005-2014; 8 percent for 2015-2016).

    D. Hazard Patterns

    The hazards reported in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns staff identified in the incidents presented in the NPR. The fatal incidents are discussed above, and primarily involved suffocation or asphyxia when babies were sleeping on baby changing products.

    As reported in the NPR, structural integrity issues were the primary hazard associated with nonfatal incidents. Incident reports CPSC received after the NPR, for incidents that occurred between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017, also involved structural integrity issues. Three of the four nonfatal incidents that occurred between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2017, were related to structural integrity. These incidents involved: A wooden shelf on the bottom of the changing table that fell because the small pins were too weak to keep the shelf in place; drawers falling out of a changing table; and bolts falling out. The fourth incident involved an 11-month-old male who fell off of a changing table when his caregiver was distracted.

    V. ASTM F2388-18

    In this final rule, the Commission incorporates by reference ASTM F2388-18. The Commission is incorporating by reference ASTM F2388-18 because it includes provisions that are the same as, or consistent with, the requirements proposed in the NPR, and CPSC staff believes that the standard addresses the hazards associated with baby changing products.

    A. History of ASTM F2388

    ASTM F2388, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Changing Products for Domestic Use, is the voluntary standard that addresses the hazard patterns associated with the use of baby changing products (in domestic settings). ASTM first approved and published the standard in 2004, as ASTM F2388-04, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Changing Tables for Domestic Use. ASTM has revised the standard several times since then. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F2388-16, with modifications.

    After the Commission issued the NPR, ASTM revised ASTM F2388 three times. CPSC staff worked with representatives of manufacturers, consumer groups, retailers, and other industry members and groups on the ASTM subcommittee for baby changing products to develop requirements to address the hazards associated with baby changing products, including issues raised in the NPR. CPSC staff also participated in the ASTM Ad Hoc Committee on Standardized Wording for Juvenile Product Standards (Ad Hoc TG) to finalize recommendations for warning labels, entitled, “Recommended Language Approved by Ad Hoc Task Group, Revision C” (November 10, 2017), to provide consistent and effective warnings for juvenile product standards. The most recent version of the standard, ASTM F2388-18, reflects the work of these groups. ASTM approved ASTM F2388-18 on February 15, 2018, and published it in March 2018.

    B. ASTM F2388-18: Comparison With the NPR and Assessment of Requirements

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F2388-16, which addressed many of the hazard patterns associated with baby changing products, with modifications to four areas of the standard. Specifically, the Commission proposed more stringent requirements than those in ASTM F2388-16 for structural integrity, restraint systems, warnings on labels, and instructional literature.

    The requirements in ASTM F2388-18 are largely the same as those the Commission proposed in the NPR. ASTM F2388-18 includes the same scope, definitions, general requirements (e.g., small parts; openings), performance requirements, and test methods that the Commission proposed incorporating by reference from ASTM F2388-16. In addition, ASTM F2388-18 includes modifications to reflect the more stringent requirements the Commission proposed in the NPR, to address comments filed in response to the NPR, and to provide additional detail and clarity. The following discussion compares the areas in which the NPR and ASTM F2388-18 differ, describes the more stringent requirements in the NPR and ASTM F2388-18, and provides CPSC staff's assessment of the ASTM F2388-18 provisions.

    1. Definitions

    ASTM F2388-18 includes six definitions that were not in ASTM F2388-16, two of which are consistent with definitions the Commission proposed in the NPR. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to define “key structural elements” and “non-rigid add-on changing unit accessory.” ASTM F2388-18 includes these definitions, but uses the term “changing table accessory” instead of “non-rigid add-on changing unit accessory.” In addition, ASTM F2388-18 defines the terms “changing product,” “protective component,” “secondary support component,” and “threaded fastener.” As explained below, the Commission concludes that these definitions are appropriate and provide additional clarity.

    ASTM F2388-18 defines “changing product” to clarify that this general term, used in the title of the standard and throughout the standard, encompasses changing tables, changing table accessories, add-on changing units, and contoured changing pads. Although the Commission did not propose to define this term in the NPR, the NPR did use “changing products” as the general term encompassing all products subject to the standard and the proposed rule, which included each of the products listed in the ASTM F2388-18 definition. Accordingly, this definition is appropriate and provides clarity about the products that are subject to the standard.

    ASTM F2388-16 (and the NPR, through proposed incorporation by reference) used the term “protective component,” although that version of the standard did not define it. ASTM F2388-16 described protective components as “caps, sleeves, or plugs used for protection from sharp edges, points or entrapment of fingers and toes.” The definition in ASTM F2388-18 is nearly identical to this description, stating “any component used for protection from sharp edges, points or entrapment of fingers or toes.” Consequently, this definition is accurate and adds clarity to the standard.

    Although the Commission did not propose to define “secondary support component” in the NPR, the NPR did propose requirements regarding secondary support straps, and the preamble to the NPR described the feature as “a metal band that runs under the center of the changing surface to provide additional support” that is installed by consumers when assembling a baby changing product. 81 FR at 66888. ASTM F2388-18 defines a “secondary support component” as “a strap, bar, rod, or other component that is consumer installed and provides added support, to the changing surface of the changing table.” Because these descriptions are consistent, this definition is appropriate, and it provides added clarity to include an explicit definition in the standard.

    Similarly, the Commission did not propose to define “threaded fastener” in the NPR, but the NPR did describe threaded fasteners as products, such as wood or sheet metal screws, metal inserts, and machine screws, which allow consumers to assemble and disassemble products. 81 FR at 66887. ASTM F2388-18 defines a “threaded fastener” as “a discrete piece of hardware that has internal or external screw threads which is used for the assembly of multiple parts and facilitates disassembly.” This definition is consistent with the NPR description, indicating that the definition is accurate, and including it in the standard provides clarity.

    2. Scissoring, Shearing, and Pinching

    ASTM F2388-18 requires baby changing products to be designed to prevent injuries from scissoring, shearing, or pinching, and includes a method of assessing compliance with this requirement (which consists of admitting a probe of particular dimensions). ASTM F2388-16 did not include requirements regarding scissoring, shearing, and pinching, and the Commission did not propose additional requirements to address these hazards in the NPR. However, these requirements are appropriate in light of other durable infant and toddler product standards. The scissoring, shearing, and pinching provisions in ASTM F2388-18 are identical to those in other ASTM durable infant and toddler product standards (e.g., high chairs, infant walkers, full-size baby cribs, play yards) that have the potential for these injuries. Accordingly, these requirements are appropriate to address a hazard common across products.

    3. Self-Folding Steps

    ASTM F2388-18 includes two distinct methods of assessing the single action release mechanism on self-folding steps, depending on the type of action necessary to release the mechanism. In ASTM F2388-16, the test for assessing self-folding steps on a baby changing product applied to all products with self-folding steps that had a “single action release mechanism.” The test involved applying a force of 10 lbf (45 N) to the locking or latching mechanism. The NPR proposed to incorporate this requirement by reference, without modification. ASTM F2388-18 retains this test for mechanisms that require a “pull or push action,” and adds a duration for applying the force. Specifying a test duration is helpful to provide clarity about the test procedure.

    ASTM F2388-18 also includes a different test for self-folding steps with a release mechanism that requires a “twist or turn action” to release, which was not in ASTM F2388-16 and was not proposed in the NPR. For steps with this mechanism, testers must apply a torque of 4 lb-in. (0.5 N-m) to the mechanism. This separate test is appropriate to better reflect and assess the different types of release mechanisms on self-folding steps.

    4. Structural Integrity Requirements

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent requirements in two areas to address structural integrity issues—threaded fasteners and secondary support straps. First, the Commission proposed requirements for threaded fasteners, to provide secure connections between fasteners and key structural elements of changing tables and products. Specifically, the Commission proposed to:

    • Prohibit the use of threaded fasteners, such as wood screws or sheet metal fasteners, directly into wood components that are key structural elements assembled by consumers;

    • require a means of preventing manufacturer-installed metal threaded fasteners used in key structural elements from loosening (such as with lock washers); and

    • require a means of preventing manufacturer-installed metal inserts in key structural elements from loosening (such as by gluing).

    The Commission proposed these limits for key structural elements, such as primary changing surface supports and side, end, base, and leg assemblies to address the stability of components that support the weight of occupants.

    ASTM F2388-18 includes the same requirements regarding threaded fasteners as the Commission proposed in the NPR, as well as two additions. As one minor addition, ASTM F2388-18 includes additional detail about the features that are “non-key structural elements,” and therefore, not subject to the threaded fastener requirements. Specifically, where the NPR listed drawers, secondary supports, storage components, and accessory items, ASTM F2388-18 lists these as well as other examples, such as fasteners that attach contoured pads and add-on changing units to supporting furniture (section 5.8.1.1). This additional detail is consistent with the requirements proposed in the NPR, which will improve the structural integrity of baby changing products. ASTM F2388-18 also specifies that the prohibition of threaded fasteners on key structural elements assembled by consumers does not apply to products that are also clothing storage units, because those products fall under the scope of ASTM F2057, Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units. This added exemption is acceptable because incident data indicate that the products that were involved in structural integrity incidents associated with fasteners were traditional stand-alone changing products, and not clothing storage units, such as dressers.

    Second, the Commission proposed to adopt the structural integrity testing required in ASTM F2388-16, but modified the test to specify that consumer-installed secondary support straps must not be installed for the test. This would reflect the less-structurally sound condition the product may be in when consumers use it without installing the secondary support strap or install the strap incorrectly.

    ASTM F2388-18 includes the same provisions proposed in the NPR. The only minor difference is that where the NPR used the term “secondary support straps or bars,” ASTM F2388-18 uses “secondary support components.” The meaning of these terms is the same, and these requirements are appropriate to provide greater product stability.

    5. Restraint System Requirements

    ASTM F2388-16, the NPR, and ASTM F2388-18 do not require baby changing products to include restraint systems. However, to ensure that restraints function effectively if provided, in the NPR, the Commission proposed to require testing of restraint systems. The proposed test required any restraint provided with a baby changing product to be secured on a CAMI dummy and pulled in four directions anticipated during normal use with a 30 pound force. To pass this performance standard, straps and buckles were required not to break or separate from baby changing products more than 1 inch from their initial adjustment positions.

    ASTM F2388-18 includes the same restraint system testing requirements as those proposed in the NPR. Accordingly, these requirements are appropriate to reduce the hazards associated with ineffective restraints.

    6. Warning Label Requirements

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent warning label content and format requirements than those in ASTM F2388-16. With respect to content, the NPR proposed to require on-product warning labels specifically addressing fall hazards, proper securement of attachable changing products, and the suffocation hazard if babies sleep on a changing product. With respect to form, the NPR proposed to include form requirements for warnings, to increase the likelihood that consumers would notice, read, and follow the warnings. The requirements for warning format proposed in the NPR were drawn from the Ad Hoc TG recommendations, which were under development at the time.

    ASTM F2388-18 includes labeling requirements that are the same as those proposed in the NPR. ASTM F2388-18 includes some minimal modifications that do not notably alter the requirements. For example, ASTM F2388-16 and the NPR specified that changing accessories sold with non-full-size cribs and play yards were exempt from the requirement to mark manufacturer and manufacturing date information on the product and retail package because they were subject to another ASTM standard with similar requirements. ASTM F2388-18 extends this exemption to accessories sold with full-size cribs, as well. This does not reduce the stringency of the requirement because full-size cribs are also subject to another ASTM standard that addresses this information. As another example, ASTM F2388-18 includes more example figures of warnings than the NPR provided, which clarify the meaning of some requirements and provide examples of additional combinations of warning statements. Additionally, ASTM F2388-18 includes a note, explaining what “address” means in the requirement that product warnings “address” specified information. The NPR also required warnings to “address” specific information, but did not explicitly define that term. This explanatory note is useful and including it aligns with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations.

    7. Instructional Literature Requirements

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed more stringent requirements for instructional literature, including format requirements consistent with those for on-product warnings, a requirement that instructions be in English (at a minimum), and that additional labels must not contradict the meaning of required information. Additionally, the Commission proposed to include a note in the regulatory text, referencing ANSI Z535.6, Product Safety Information in Product Manuals, Instructions, and Other Collateral Materials (ANSI Z535.6; available at: http://www.ansi.org/), for optional additional guidance about the design of product safety messages in instructional literature.

    The instructional literature requirements in ASTM F2388-18 are consistent with those in the NPR, with minor adjustments to align with the Ad Hoc TG recommendations. For example, where the NPR required warnings in instructions to align with the on-product warning format requirements generally, ASTM F2388-18 includes an equivalent requirement, but exempts warnings in instructions from distinctiveness and color requirements. These requirements are appropriate because they are consistent with the NPR and the Ad Hoc TG recommendations.

    VI. Comments Filed in Response to the NPR

    CPSC received nine comments in response to the NPR. The comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2016-0023, at: www.regulations.gov. A summary of the comments, grouped by topic, and CPSC staff's responses are below.

    A. Postpone Rulemaking

    Summary of Comment: Comments recommended that the Commission delay issuing a final rule or issue a supplemental NPR because ASTM's then-upcoming 2017 revisions to the standard likely would address the concerns raised in the NPR.

    Response: ASTM has updated its standard several times since the NPR, and approved ASTM F2388-18 on February 15, 2018. ASTM F2388-18, which the Commission is incorporating by reference without modification, addresses the issues raised in the NPR. As discussed in section V of this notice, the requirements in ASTM F2388-18 align with the requirements in the NPR, making a supplemental NPR unnecessary.

    B. Wood Screws

    Summary of Comment: Comments requested that the Commission only apply the wood screw restriction to “open frame” products, or exclude from the wood screw restrictions furniture, such as dressers, that include barriers or a changing pad. Commenters stated that incident data does not indicate that these types of products are involved in incidents. Commenters stated that furniture is often sold unassembled and consumers use wood screws to assemble it, making it difficult for such products to comply with the wood screw restriction. Commenters noted that the ASTM subcommittee considered excluding these types of furniture from the wood screw restriction. One commenter recommended removing the wood screw restriction and, instead, relying on the structural performance tests in the standard.

    Response: Consistent with these comments, ASTM F2388-18 excludes changing tables that are also clothing storage units (such as dressers) from the wood screw restriction. This exclusion is reasonable because incident data indicate that fastener failures occur in open-frame changing tables, rather than changing tables that are also clothing storage units. In addition, changing tables that are also clothing storage units are subject to requirements in ASTM F2057, Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units. For all other changing tables, ASTM F2388-18 prohibits the use of wood screws on key structural elements, consistent with requirements in other ASTM durable infant or toddler product standards, such as cribs and high chairs. This requirement is good engineering practice and addresses incidents in which a changing product collapsed due to wood screws coming out or missing from the product.

    C. Metal Inserts

    Summary of Comment: Comments opposed the proposal to require glue or other locking means for metal inserts. Commenters stated that glue inside the insert can result in assembly difficulties for consumers, is design restrictive, and unnecessary. In addition, one commenter requested definitions of “key structural elements” and “threaded fasteners” to clarify which products and features would be subject to the requirement.

    Response: This requirement is similar to requirements in other ASTM durable infant or toddler product standards (such as cribs and high chairs), is good engineering practice, and addresses structural integrity issues identified in incident data. CPSC staff does not consider the wording “. . . shall be glued or include other means to impede loosening or detaching” to be design restrictive because it provides manufacturers with flexibility to meet the requirements by any means (glue is just an example of how the requirement can be met). In addition, to provide clarity about the features subject to this requirement, ASTM F2388-18 includes definitions for “key structural elements” and “threaded fasteners.”

    D. Restraints

    Summary of Comment: A comment requested that the Commission require baby changing products to include restraint straps, rather than allow them to be optional. The commenter stated that barriers are not sufficient to prevent children from rolling off of products and that there are restraint designs that would not interfere with changing a diaper.

    Response: Restraints may give caregivers a sense of safety, diminishing their attentiveness, and increasing potential hazards. For example, if caregivers believe that restraint straps provide safety, they may leave a child unattended on a changing table, and an unattended child in a restraint consisting of a single waist strap is exposed to a potential strangulation hazard. As such, the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to require restraints at this time. Moreover, incident data indicate that restraint failures involve restraints detaching from the product, or straps or buckles breaking. The final rule addresses these demonstrated hazards by requiring that if restraints are provided, they must be tested to ensure they are effective.

    E. Warnings

    Summary of Comment: A comment suggested that the Commission require pictograms in warnings to convey the hazards associated with baby changing products.

    Response: The commenter did not provide recommended pictograms for staff to evaluate. CPSC's Division of Human Factors staff believes that a well-developed and tested pictogram can increase comprehension, but designing effective, understandable graphics can be difficult. Readers do not properly understand some seemingly obvious graphics, which can result in misinterpretations.

    F. Effective Date

    Summary of Comment: CPSC received comments about the proposed 6-month effective date. One comment, submitted by three consumer advocate groups, supported the 6-month effective date. Two commenters requested a longer effective date (one firm requested 1 year and the other at least 1 year). The latter two commenters expressed concern that six months would not provide adequate time for producers to modify their products, and one of the commenters noted that some manufacturers “purchase their materials as a single order to cover an entire year,” which would be problematic if these firms need to change their products sooner than that.

    Response: The Commission generally considers 6 months an appropriate effective date for rules issued under section 104 of the CPSIA, but recognizes that longer effective dates minimize the impact on affected firms. As the final regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule explains, the final rule could have a significant economic impact on as much as 43 percent of the small firms that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market. Many of those firms may not be aware of the ASTM voluntary standard for changing products or this rulemaking. Accordingly, the Commission is providing a longer effective date for the final rule than proposed in the NPR. The rule will take effect 12 months after publication of this final rule.

    G. Miscellaneous

    Summary of Comment: A comment stated that a mandatory standard for baby changing products would not reduce the risk of fatalities because the fatalities reported to CPSC involved babies sleeping on products, which is not their intended use.

    Response: As the Division of Human Factors memorandum in the NPR briefing package explained, the fatal incidents involving baby changing products suggest that caregivers may mistake changing accessories for sleep surfaces. To address this issue and reduce the risk associated with babies sleeping on baby changing products, the NPR proposed and the final rule requires baby changing products to bear warnings specifically cautioning against allowing babies to sleep on the products. The Commission believes that this will reduce the risk of such foreseeable misuse and the resulting injuries and deaths.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require the preamble to a final rule to summarize the material and discuss the ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested persons, and how interested parties can obtain the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). In accordance with the OFR regulations, this section summarizes ASTM F2388-18, and describes how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.

    ASTM F2388-18 contains requirements concerning:

    • Sharp points and edges; • small parts; • surface coatings; • wood parts; • openings; • toys; • threaded fasteners; • protective components; • scissoring, shearing, and pinching; • structural integrity; • stability; • barriers; • retention of contoured changing pads and add-on changing units; • entrapment in shelves and in enclosed openings; • self-folding steps; • restraint systems; • warnings and labels; and • instructional literature. The standard also includes test methods to assess conformance with these requirements. Interested parties may obtain a copy of ASTM F2388-18 from ASTM, through its website (http://www.astm.org), or by mail from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. Alternatively, interested parties may inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC's Office of the Secretary. VIII. Final Rule

    Section 1235.2(a) of the final rule requires baby changing products to comply with ASTM F2388-18 and incorporates the standard by reference. Section VII of this preamble describes the OFR requirements for incorporating material by reference. In accordance with those requirements, section VII summarizes ASTM F2388-18, explains how the standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties may obtain a copy of the standard.

    The final rule also amends 16 CFR part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(45) that lists 16 CFR part 1235, Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products, as a children's product safety rule for which the Commission has issued an NOR. Section XIV of this preamble provides additional information about certifications and NORs.

    IX. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires that agencies set an effective date for a final rule that is at least 30 days after the Federal Register publishes the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The NPR proposed that the final rule for baby changing products, and the amendment to part 1112, would take effect 6 months after publication. CPSC received comments requesting an implementation date of 1 year, asserting that additional time would be necessary for firms to modify products to meet the standard. CPSC believes that 1 year is sufficient for firms to modify their products to meet the new standard. Therefore, this rule will take effect 1 year after publication in the Federal Register, and will apply to products manufactured or imported on or after that date.

    X. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under the PRA, CPSC must estimate the “burden” associated with each “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3506(c).

    In this rule, section 9 of ASTM F2388-18 contains labeling requirements that meet the definition of “collection of information” in the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). In addition, section 10 of ASTM F2388-18 requires instructions to be provided with baby changing products; however, CPSC believes this requirement can be excluded from the PRA burden estimate. OMB allows agencies to exclude from the PRA burden estimate any “time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities,” if the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Because baby changing products generally require use and assembly instructions, and CPSC is not aware of baby changing products that generally require instructions but lack them, CPSC believes that providing instructions with baby changing products is “usual and customary.” For this reason, the burden estimate includes only the labeling requirements.

    The preamble to the NPR discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and requested comments on the accuracy of CPSC's estimates. 81 FR 66893 to 66894. CPSC did not receive any comments about the information collection burden of the proposed rule. However, the information collection burden has changed since the NPR because CPSC staff has identified 120 baby changing product suppliers (102 domestic firms, 17 foreign firms, and 1 firm of unknown location), rather than the 85 firms identified in the NPR, that it estimates will be subject to the information collection burden. Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 16 CFR section Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency
  • of responses
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 1235.2 120 6 720 1 720

    The estimated reporting burden is based on CPSC staff's expectation that all 120 baby changing product suppliers known to CPSC will need to modify their labels to comply with the final rule. CPSC staff estimates that it will take about 1 hour per model to make these modifications and, based on staff's evaluation of product lines, that each supplier has an average of 6 models of baby changing products. Consequently, CPSC estimates that the burden associated with the labeling requirements is: 120 entities × 1 hour per model × 6 models per entity = 720 hours. CPSC staff estimates that the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $34.21 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” Sept. 2017, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost associated with the labeling requirements is: $34.21 per hour × 720 hours = $24,631.20. CPSC staff does not expect there to be operating, maintenance, or capital costs associated with this information collection.

    As the PRA requires, CPSC has submitted the information collection requirements of this final rule to OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). OMB has assigned control number 3041-0175 to this information collection.

    XI. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to consider the potential economic impact of a proposed and final rule on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires agencies to prepare and publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when they issue a final rule, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FRFA must discuss:

    • The need for and objectives of the rule;

    • significant issues raised in public comments about the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a response to comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, the agency's assessment of the comments, and any changes made to the rule as a result of the comments;

    • the description and estimated number of small entities that will be subject to the rule;

    • the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, as well as the small entities that would be subject to those requirements, and the types of skills necessary to prepare the reports or records;

    • steps the agency took to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities; and

    • the factual, policy, and legal reasons the agency selected the alternative in the final rule, and why it rejected other significant alternatives.

    5 U.S.C. 604.

    Based on an assessment by CPSC's Directorate for Economic Analysis staff, CPSC cannot certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, staff has prepared a FRFA. This section summarizes the FRFA for this final rule. The complete FRFA is available as part of CPSC staff's briefing package at: https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Baby%20Changing%20Products%20-%20June%2013%202018.pdf?ZbvMCsfyQfLFivqHRbFWKclOordsuVeC.

    B. Comments Relevant to the FRFA

    CPSC did not receive any comments specifically addressing the IRFA that accompanied the proposed rule or from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of SBA. However, CPSC received comments about the effective date of the final rule, which are relevant to the FRFA insofar as they address the costs associated with the rule. These comments are discussed in section VI.F. of this preamble. After considering these comments, and the potential economic impact of the rule on small firms, the Commission is extending the effective date for the final rule to 1 year, rather than the proposed 6 months. CPSC believes that this longer effective date will reduce the economic impact of the rule on firms, some of which may not be aware of the ASTM standard or this rulemaking, by reducing the potential for a lapse in production or imports while bringing products into compliance with the rule, and spreading the costs of compliance over a longer period.

    C. Description of Small Entities Subject to the Rule

    CPSC staff identified 120 firms that supply baby changing products to the U.S. market, consisting of 102 domestic firms, 17 foreign firms, and 1 firm for which staff could not determine the location. Of the 102 domestic firms, 84 are small entities, according to SBA's standards, and 18 are large. Of the 84 small domestic entities, 61 are manufacturers, and 23 are importers or wholesalers. It is possible that there are additional baby changing product suppliers in the U.S. market that staff has not identified.

    D. Description of the Final Rule

    Sections V and VII of this preamble describe the requirements in the final rule, which incorporates by reference ASTM F2388-18. In addition, the final rule amends the regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include the safety standard for baby changing products in the list of NORs.

    E. Impact on Small Businesses

    For the FRFA, staff limited its analysis to the 84 small domestic firms staff identified as supplying baby changing products to the U.S. market because SBA guidelines and definitions apply to domestic entities. In assessing whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on small entities, staff generally considers impacts “significant” if they exceed 1 percent of a firm's revenue. This section provides details about staff's assessment of the economic impact of the final rule on small domestic entities. To summarize, staff believes that it is unlikely that the final rule will have a significant economic impact on 22 of the 61 small manufacturers and 10 of the 23 small importers and wholesalers, all of which already comply with a version of the ASTM standard. Of the remaining firms, which do not already comply with the voluntary standard, staff does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on 13 of the 39 small manufacturers and 3 of the 13 small importers and wholesalers because most of these firms supply products that staff does not expect will require changes to conform to the rule. Staff could not rule out a significant economic impact on the remaining 26 small manufacturers and 10 small importers and wholesalers.

    1. Small Manufacturers

    At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 22 of the 61 small manufacturers reported that their baby changing products complied with the then-current ASTM standard. Staff believes that firms that report complying with the voluntary standard will continue to comply with the standard as it evolves, as part of an established business practice. Staff does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on any of these 22 firms because ASTM F2388-18 was published well before the effective date of this rule. Staff expects third party testing costs to be minimal because these firms already test their products for compliance with the voluntary standard.

    The remaining 39 small manufacturers produce baby changing products that do not comply with the voluntary standard. Seven of these firms manufacture only wooden changing trays that are sold separately from furniture, which are subject to few requirements other than side height, labeling, and instructions. Staff does not expect changes to warnings, instructions, or side heights to create significant costs. An additional 12 firms manufacture only contoured changing pads, which are also subject to minimal requirements, primarily including barrier and retention requirements, labels, and instructions. Staff believes that firms will not have to modify most of these changing pads to meet these requirements, but it is possible that a few firms would need to modify their products to meet the barrier and retention requirements. These modifications could be costly because firms would need new molds for foam products. For purposes of the FRFA, staff assumed that two firms would need to modify their contoured changing pads to comply with the final rule.

    The remaining 20 firms manufacture a variety of changing products. Firms staff interviewed before the Commission issued the NPR indicated that the cost of completely redesigning a product could range from $25,000 to $200,000, depending on the type of changing product. It is likely that the final rule will have a significant impact on nine of these firms (and possibly one more) based on their revenue levels; it is unlikely the rule will have a significant economic impact on three of these firms, based on their revenues; and staff could not determine the revenues of the remaining seven firms.

    Staff believes that third party testing costs are not likely to have a significant economic impact on 21 of the 39 small domestic noncompliant manufacturers, but could exceed 1 percent of revenues for the remaining 18 firms, with varying degrees of likelihood. Staff also believes that third party testing costs could result in significant economic impacts for 7 of the 20 small domestic noncompliant manufacturers that are not likely to experience significant economic impacts from the requirements in ASTM F2388-18.

    2. Small Importers and Wholesalers

    At the time staff prepared the FRFA, 10 of the 23 small importers and wholesalers reported that their baby changing products complied with the then-current ASTM standard. Staff considered the economic impact to importers and wholesalers together because both rely on outside firms to supply the products they distribute to the U.S. market. Like small, compliant manufacturers, staff expects that these importers and wholesalers will comply with ASTM F2388-18 before the effective date of the final rule. Therefore, staff does not expect the final rule to have a significant economic impact on any of these firms. Likewise, staff expects third party testing costs to be minimal because costs would be limited to the difference between the cost of current testing regimes and third party testing costs.

    The remaining 13 small importers and wholesalers supply baby changing products that do not comply with the voluntary standard. The economic impact of the rule on these importers and wholesalers depends on the extent of the changes needed for their products to comply with the rule and the response of their suppliers. Staff generally cannot determine this information for importers and wholesalers that do not comply with the voluntary standard.

    Nevertheless, staff anticipates that the rule could have a significant economic impact on some of these firms. Staff estimates that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on one importer that supplies only wooden changing trays. The rule also may not have a significant economic impact on two importers and one wholesaler that provide only contoured changing pads. However, one of these firms may need to redesign its product, which would have a significant economic impact on the firm. Each of these firms has wide enough product lines that it could stop supplying changing products, although the impact of that on revenue is unclear.

    Of the remaining six importers and three wholesalers, four firms have low enough revenues that they are likely to experience a significant economic impact, regardless of how their suppliers respond, as their suppliers are not likely to absorb any of the costs and finding alternative suppliers can be costly. Three of these firms may be able to stop supplying changing products, but it is not clear what impact this would have on their revenues. Staff does not have revenue information for the remaining five firms. As a result, staff cannot rule out the possibility that the rule will have a significant economic impact on these five firms. However, one of these firms appears to be tied to its suppliers, who may absorb some of the costs, and another firm has a wide enough product line that it could stop supplying changing products.

    Staff believes that third party testing could result in significant costs for three of the firms that import noncompliant baby changing products. For two of these firms, testing costs could exceed 1 percent of gross revenue if the firm tests only one unit per model. A third firm would need to test about three units per model before testing costs would exceed 1 percent of its gross revenue. Staff did not have access to revenue data for seven of the small noncompliant importers and wholesalers to determine the potential economic impact of the rule.

    3. Accreditation Requirements for Testing Laboratories

    Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) requires all children's products that are subject to a children's product safety rule to be tested by a third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing laboratory) that has been accredited by CPSC. Testing laboratories that want to conduct this testing must meet the NOR for third party conformity testing. The final rule amends 16 CFR part 1112 to establish an NOR for testing laboratories to test for compliance with the baby changing product rule.

    In the IRFA for this rule, staff anticipated that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because: (1) The rule imposed requirements only on laboratories that intended to provide third party testing services; (2) laboratories would assume the costs only if they anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision; and (3) most laboratories would already have accreditation to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, thereby limiting the costs to adding the baby changing product standard to their scope of accreditation. CPSC has not received any information to date that contradicts this assessment. Therefore, staff believes that the NOR for the baby changing product standard will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    F. Alternatives and Steps To Minimize Economic Impacts

    In response to comments, the Commission is providing a 1 year effective date, rather than the proposed 6 months. This should reduce the economic impact of the rule for small entities. Setting a later effective date reduces the likelihood of a lapse in production or imports if firms cannot comply with the standard or obtain third party testing within the time provided. In addition, a later effective date spreads the costs of compliance over a longer period, reducing annual costs and the present value of total costs.

    XII. Environmental Considerations

    CPSC's regulations list categories of agency actions that “normally have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Such actions qualify as “categorical exclusions” under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-12), which do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. One categorical exclusion listed in CPSC's regulations is for rules or safety standards that “provide design or performance requirements for products.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Because the final rule for baby changing products creates design or performance requirements, the rule falls within the categorical exclusion.

    XIII. Preemption

    Under section 26(a) of the CPSA, no state or political subdivision of a state may establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury as a federal consumer product safety standard under the CPSA unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). However, states or political subdivisions of states may apply to CPSC for an exemption, allowing them to establish or continue such a requirement if the state requirement “provides a significantly higher degree of protection from [the] risk of injury” and “does not unduly burden interstate commerce.” Id. 2075(c).

    Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to issue consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. As such, consumer product safety standards that the Commission creates under CPSIA section 104 are covered by the preemption provision in the CPSA. As a result, the preemption provision in section 26 of the CPSA applies to the mandatory safety standard for baby changing products.

    XIV. Testing, Certification, and Notification of Requirements

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires the manufacturer or private labeler of a children's product that is subject to a children's product safety rule to certify that, based on a third party conformity assessment body's testing, the product complies with the applicable children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)(A), 2063(a)(2)(B). Section 14(a) also requires the Commission to publish an NOR for a third party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing laboratory) to obtain accreditation to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(3)(A). Because this safety standard for baby changing products is a children's product safety rule, it requires the Commission to issue an NOR.

    On March 12, 2013, the Commission published a final rule in the Federal Register, entitled Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, establishing 16 CFR part 1112, which sets out the general requirements and criteria concerning testing laboratories. 78 FR 15836. Part 1112 includes procedures for CPSC to accept a testing laboratory's accreditation and lists the children's product safety rules for which the Commission has published NORs. When the Commission issues a new NOR, it must amend part 1112 to include that NOR. Accordingly, the Commission is amending part 1112 to include the baby changing products standard.

    Testing laboratories that apply for CPSC acceptance to test baby changing products for compliance with the new baby changing product rule would have to meet the requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements of a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to CPSC to include 16 CFR part 1235, Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products, in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

    As the RFA requires, CPSC staff conducted a FRFA for the rulemaking in which the Commission adopted part 1112. 78 FR 15836, 15855 (Mar. 12, 2013). To summarize, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements were imposed on laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only laboratories CPSC expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

    By the same reasoning, adding an NOR for the baby changing product standard to part 1112 will not have a significant economic impact on small test laboratories. A relatively small number of laboratories in the United States have applied for accreditation to test for conformance to existing juvenile product standards. Accordingly, CPSC expects that only a few laboratories will seek accreditation to test for compliance with the baby changing product standard. Of those that seek accreditation, CPSC expects that most will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards. The only costs to those laboratories will be the cost of adding the baby changing product standard to their scopes of accreditation. For these reasons, CPSC certifies that amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include an NOR for the baby changing products standard will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    XV. Consumer Registration of Durable Infant or Toddler Products

    As section 104(d) of the CPSIA requires, regulations in 16 CFR part 1130 require manufacturers of durable infant or toddler products to provide registration forms with each product, maintain the contact information consumers submit on these forms, and mark manufacturer and model information on products. Section 1130.2(a)(14) lists “changing tables” as one of the products subject to the registration card requirements. However, “changing tables” is no longer used as the general term to encompass all baby changing products that are subject to ASTM F2388-18 and this final rule, and this term may create confusion since it is only one type of baby changing product. Because all of the baby changing products subject to this rule are “durable infant or toddler products,” section 104(d) of the CPSIA requires the registration card requirements to apply to all of these products.

    Accordingly, the Commission anticipates issuing a notice proposing to amend 16 CFR part 1130 to clarify that “changing tables” include all changing products identified in ASTM F2388-18, which includes changing tables, contoured changing pads, changing table accessories, and add-on changing units.

    List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party conformity assessment body.

    16 CFR Part 1235

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Toys.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:

    PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.

    2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(45) to read as follows:
    § 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

    (b) * * *

    (45) 16 CFR part 1235, Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products.

    3. Add part 1235 to read as follows: PART 1235—SAFETY STANDARD FOR BABY CHANGING PRODUCTS Sec. 1235.1 Scope. 1235.2 Requirements for baby changing products. Authority:

    Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

    § 1235.1 Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for baby changing products.

    § 1235.2 Requirements for baby changing products.

    Each baby changing product shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2388-18, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Baby Changing Products for Domestic Use, approved on February 15, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13556 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0499] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; City of Erie Fourth of July Fireworks; Lake Erie, Erie, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of the launch site located at Dobbins Landing, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during City of Erie Fourth of July fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0499 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 3, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Erie, NY contained within 280-foot radius of: 42°08′17.13″ N, 080°05′30.17″ W.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0499 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0499 Safety Zone; City of Erie Fourth of July Fireworks; Lake Erie, Erie, PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Erie, PA contained within a 280-foot radius of: 42°08′17.13″ N, 80°05′30.17″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13643 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0078] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters on the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor during the Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with this regatta. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. on July 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0078 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On December 27, 2017, the Buffalo Vintage Boat Racing Association and BR Guest Inc., notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a regatta on July 1, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. on the Buffalo Outer Harbor. In response, on April 25, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY (83 FR 17962, April 25, 2018). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this regatta. During the comment period that ended May 25, 2018, we received no relevant comments.

    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 would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the planned regatta.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined the Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta presents significant risks to the public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the regatta takes place.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no relevant comments on our NPRM published April 25, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 1, 2018 from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters at the start point at position 42°52′04″ N, 078°53′03″ W, then South to 42°51′07″ N, 078°52′09″ W (NAD 83) on the Outer Harbor in Buffalo, NY. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. regatta.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regular action. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which impacts a small designated area of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, by transiting a short distance in Lake Erie. The safety zone will also have built in times where vessels will be able to transit through the regatta area during event breaks. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0078 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0078 Safety Zone; Officer Lehner Memorial Vintage Regatta; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY, starting at position 42°52′04″ N, 078°53′03″ W then South to 42°51′07″ N, 078°52′09″ W (NAD 83). The course will extend a minimum of 100 yards from the shore and the breakwall.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. on July 1, 2018.

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

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

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

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (716) 843-9322. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13666 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0468] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Wine and Walleye Festival Fireworks; Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of the launch site at the R.W. Sidley Facility, Ashtabula, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Ashtabula River during the Wine and Walleye Festival fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. until 11:15 p.m. on July 28, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0468 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 28, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 11:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OH contained within 280-foot radius of: 41°54′06″ N, 080°47′49″ W.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0468 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0468 Safety Zone; Wine and Walleye Festival Fireworks; Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, OH.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of the Ashtabula River; Ashtabula, OH contained within a 280-foot radius of: 41°54′06″ N, 080°47′49″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:45 p.m. until 11:15 p.m. on July 28, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13659 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0331] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 94 to MM 95 above Head of Passes. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment near Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display on June 30, 2018. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10 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-2018-0331 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 Commander Howard Vacco, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 4, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 10 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on June 30, 2018, for a wedding celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Mississippi River at the approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5 above Head of Passes near Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. In response, on April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA (83 FR 16817). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 17, 2018, we received one comment.

    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 New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this June 30, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the river. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published April 17, 2018. The comment was unrelated to the substance of this rule. Therefore, no changes were made to the regulatory text of the final rule based on the comment.

    However, on April 18, 2018, AFX Pro, LLC notified the Coast Guard that the fireworks display would begin at 9 p.m. instead of 9.45 p.m. and end at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m., as we originally published in the NPRM. Therefore, the regulatory text of this rule updates the effective period in the NPRM to 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m.

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Mississippi River above Head of Passes between mile markers (MM) 94 and 95. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from 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 New Orleans. 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 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. 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 a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone is for only one hour and fifteen minutes on a one-mile section of the river. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section 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.

    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 one hour and fifteen minutes that will prohibit entry between mile marker 94 and mile marker 95 on the Lower Mississippi River above Head of Passes. 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.T08-0331 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0331 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA from mile marker (MM) 94 to MM 95 above Head of Passes.

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 30, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or 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 New Orleans.

    (2) 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 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

    (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.

    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners and Local Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: June 12, 2018. K.M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13644 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0567] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 560-foot radius of the launch site located at Cahoon Park, Bay Village, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Bay Village Independence Day fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0567 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause find that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” On April 19, 2018, the Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket Number USCG-2017-1112, to make temporary safety zones for annual events a final rule. This event was included in the NPRM. Its purpose was to mitigate potential threats to personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the specified safety zones. The NPRM addressed these concerns, and invited the public to comment during the comment period, which ended on May 21, 2018. As such, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM for this temporary rule because the public had opportunity to comment on it and no comments were received concerning this event.

    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 would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the fireworks display.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH contained within 560-foot radius of: 41°29′23.9″ N, 081°55′44.5″ W.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0567 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0567 Safety Zone; Bay Village Independence Day Fireworks; Lake Erie, Bay Village, OH.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all U.S waterways within a 560 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°29′23.9″ N, 081°55′44.5″ W, Bay Village, OH (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation is effective and will be enforced on July 4, 2018 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13600 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 35 [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569; FRL-9979-90-OW] Previously-Incurred Costs in the WIFIA Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    With this interim final rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) regulations to clarify the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds. This interim final rule pertains to a matter involving a federal loan and loan guarantee program and is therefore exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. As such, EPA is issuing this rule as interim final.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on June 26, 2018. Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0569, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jordan Dorfman, Water Infrastructure Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4201C, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0614; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action only applies to entities seeking credit assistance under the WIFIA program for the development and construction of a water infrastructure project. EPA has promulgated regulations to implement this program. A list of eligible entities and eligible projects can be found at 33 U.S.C. 3904 and 3905 and the Interim Final Rule at 40 CFR 35.10005.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk, CD-ROM, or flash drive that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk, CD-ROM, or flash drive as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk, CD-ROM, or flash drive the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background A. What action is the Agency taking?

    Section 5008(c)(2) of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Public Law 114-322, added section 5029(b)(10) (33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10)) to the WIFIA authorizing legislation. This section requires that any eligible project costs incurred, and the value of any integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance be credited toward the 51 percent of project costs to be provided by sources of funding other than a WIFIA loan. 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10). This section provides WIFIA borrowers the opportunity to include costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance and the value of integral in-kind contributions made before receipt of assistance, in the calculation of total eligible costs in order to calculate the size of the loan. However, it does not address what costs can be reimbursed. The size of the project is important in determining the amount of funding that may be awarded to the WIFIA borrower (“size of the loan”) because the statute, at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(2)(A), limits the size of the loan to 49 percent of the total reasonably anticipated eligible costs for the project. Instead of addressing the reimbursement of costs, 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10) uses the term “credited” and directs that certain costs be credited toward a category of costs, the 51 percent to be provided by a non-WIFIA source. Importantly, the statute does not prohibit the use of a WIFIA loan to reimburse eligible costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance. The WIFIA loan can therefore be used to reimburse any eligible cost, whether or not incurred prior to the receipt of assistance, except for the value of in-kind contributions which do not represent out-of-pocket costs to a borrower and are not costs for which a borrower would typically seek reimbursement or payment.

    For these reasons, EPA is clarifying current regulations by adding to 40 CFR 35.10010(c) the clause “value of any integral in-kind contributions made” to allow these costs to be included in the calculation of eligible project costs and by changing “prior to a project sponsor's submission of an application for credit assistance” to “before receipt of credit assistance” to ensure that all such costs and integral in-kind contributions are included. EPA is also adding the clause, “such costs, excluding the value of any integral in-kind contributions, are payable from the proceeds of the WIFIA credit instrument” to ensure that such costs may be reimbursed from WIFIA loan proceeds.

    Crediting prior costs and the value of integral in-kind contributions to the project increases the size of the project and, by extension, may increase the size of the WIFIA loan. For example, if a borrower has incurred $110 million in costs prior to the receipt of assistance, and anticipates incurring $90 million in costs after receipt of assistance, the size of the project would be $200 million. Looking at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(2)(A) in isolation, EPA could potentially fund up to 49 percent of that $200 million, or $98 million. However, by further directing that the costs incurred and contributions made prior to receipt of assistance be credited toward the 51 percent of project costs to be provided by sources of funding other than WIFIA, 3908(b)(10) serves to limit the size of the loan if the borrower has completed a substantial portion of the overall project. In this example project, the size of the loan would be limited to $90 million because the $110 million of costs incurred prior to receipt of assistance must be credited to the 51 percent category of costs to be provided by non-WIFIA sources of funding, leaving only $90 million to be funded by WIFIA.

    Costs and in-kind contributions must be directly related to the development or execution of the project including, for example, preliminary design, right-of-way acquisition, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance related costs, and construction related costs. The WIFIA program retains the right to ask for appropriate documentation as evidence of such costs and in-kind contributions for sizing of the WIFIA loan and, in the case of incurred costs, for reimbursement.

    In addition, 40 CFR 35.10010(c) is amended by removing “[i]n addition, applicants shall not include application charges or any other expenses associated with the application process (such as charges associated with obtaining the required preliminary rating opinion letter) among the eligible project costs.” This sentence is redundant because 40 CFR 35.10005 provides a definition of eligible project costs from which the determination of eligibility of a cost can be determined. It causes confusion because it implies that fees charged by the WIFIA program cannot be included as an eligible project cost even though they are specifically allowed to be financed as part of a WIFIA loan by statute at 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7)(B). Furthermore, EPA has determined that the cost of obtaining rating opinion letters is eligible under 33 U.S.C. 3906(4) which states that “capitalized interest necessary to meet market requirements, reasonably required reserve funds, capital issuance expenses, and other carrying costs during construction” are eligible costs.

    B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This interim final rule is issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(10) and 3911.

    III. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action.

    B. Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this rule merely establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. With this interim final rule, the EPA is amending the WIFIA regulations to clarify the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds. This interim final rule does not impose costs on small entities applying for a WIFIA loan. I have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. While a tribal government, or a consortium of tribal governments may apply for WIFIA credit assistance, this action 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.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because environmental health or safety risks are not addressed by this action.

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

    This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This rulemaking simply establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds.

    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

    L. National Environmental Policy Act

    Each project obtaining assistance under this program is required to adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370). This rulemaking simply establishes the process for, and conditions under which, a recipient of WIFIA credit assistance can include costs incurred, and the value of integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of assistance in the calculation of total eligible costs, and can be reimbursed for certain of those costs by WIFIA loan proceeds; therefore, by itself, this rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Water finance.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 35 is amended as follows:

    PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE 1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.; Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-299 (1996); Pub. L. 105-65, 111 Stat. 1344, 1373 (1997), 2 CFR 200.

    2. Amend § 35.10010 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 35.10010 Limitations on assistance.

    (c) Costs incurred, and the value of any integral in-kind contributions made, before receipt of credit assistance may be considered in calculating eligible project costs only upon approval of the Administrator. Such costs and integral in-kind contributions must be directly related to the development or execution of the project and must be eligible project costs as defined in § 35.10005. In addition, such costs, excluding the value of any integral in-kind contributions, are payable from the proceeds of the WIFIA credit instrument and shall be considered incurred costs for purposes of paragraph (f) of this section. Capitalized interest on the WIFIA credit instrument is not eligible for calculating eligible project costs.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13714 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0136; FRL-9979-76—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Montana; Revisions to PSD Permitting Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to fully approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Montana on October 14, 2016. Montana's October 14, 2016 submittal revises their prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0136. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What is the EPA taking final action to approve?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Montana's PSD regulations as submitted by the State of Montana on October 14, 2016. We are taking final action to approve the following revision to Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii): Removing the phrase “averaged over a 24-hour period.”

    We provided a detailed background in our proposed rulemaking, published on April 27, 2018. See 83 FR 18494. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on May 29, 2018.

    In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the State's October 14, 2016 submittal.

    II. Response to Comments

    We received two comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response.

    III. Final Action

    We are taking final action to approve changes to Montana's SIP—in particular the revisions to ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii), which removes the phrase “averaged over a 24-hour period”—as submitted on October 14, 2016. We are taking final action to approve this change, as it is consistent with the CAA and the EPA regulations as follows:

    1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that [the NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter”;

    2. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Montana's regulations in ARM 17.8 create enforceable obligations for sources;

    3. CAA section 110(i) (with certain limited exceptions) prohibits states from modifying SIP requirements for stationary sources except through the SIP revision process. As described in our proposed rulemaking, Montana fulfilled this requirement;

    4. CAA section 110(l), provides that the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that interferes with any applicable requirement of the Act. The revisions to ARM 17.8.818 would not interfere with sections 110(a)(2) and 110(i) of the Act, as they are in compliance with current federal regulations;

    5. CAA section 161, which requires a SIP to contain emission limitations to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in regions designated as attainment or unclassifiable; and

    6. Montana's SIP revision complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 as the plan imposes the regulatory requirements on individual sources, as required by the regulatory provisions.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is taking final action to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is taking final action to incorporate by reference a change to the State of Montana's SIP removing “averaged over a 24-hour period” from ARM 17.8.818(7)(a)(iii). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • Is not expected to be 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,

    • Is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Douglas Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart BB—Montana 2. Section 52.1370(c) is amended by revising table entry “17.8.818” to read as follows:
    § 52.1370 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    State citation Rule title State effective date EPA rule final date Final rule citation Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * (vi) Administrative Rules of Montana, Subchapter 08, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * 17.8.818 Review of Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications—Source Applicability and Exemptions 08/20/2016 6/26/2018 [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13597 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0557; FRL-9979-92-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; SC; VOC Definition AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision makes a modification to the definition of “volatile organic compounds” (VOC). EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) on September 5, 2017, because the State has demonstrated that these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0557. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Wong, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69298), EPA issued a final rule revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by adding tertiary butyl acetate (or t-Butyl acetate or TBAC) to the list of compounds that are considered to be negligibly reactive and excluded from the definition of VOC. Additionally, on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339), EPA issued a final rule further revising the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) by removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate. EPA removed these requirements in part because there was no evidence that TBAC was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation and because the data that had been collected under these requirements had proven to be of limited utility in judging the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds.1 See 81 FR 9339, 9341.

    1 In the 2016 EPA rule, EPA also discussed the efforts surrounding any future determinations about the health risks associated with TBAC, including noting that data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting requirements did not appear relevant to any such future determinations and that EPA was assessing the health risks from TBAC through its Integrated Risk Information System. This effort is on-going and more information regarding health risks may be found at EPA's previous 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 9339, 9341).

    On February 15, 2018 (83 FR 6822), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for changes to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by the South Carolina DHEC on September 5, 2017. The submission revises South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1—Definitions and General Requirements, specifically Section I—“Definitions,” by removing the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate. EPA received one adverse comment in the proposed rulemaking. After considering the adverse comment, EPA is now taking final action to approve the South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions” revision. For more information, see the February 15, 2018, NPRM.

    II. Response to Comment

    Comment: EPA received one adverse comment to the revision to Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions.” The Commenter asserted that air quality policy should be based on no negative impacts on health, and as a result, stated, “This proposed revision would do the opposite because it fails to acknowledge the change in emissions that South Carolina could undertake after tert-butyl acetate (TBAc) is taken off the states list of volatile organic compounds. I reject this revision because EPA's logic for approval is flawed when they say, “. . . There was no evidence that TBAc was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation . . .”. The Commenter expressed concerns that the use of TBAC could change in South Carolina, and since record keeping and monitoring will no longer be required, this impact will not be assessed. Because of these concerns, the Commenter recommended that EPA prohibit South Carolina from adding TBAC to the negligibly reactive list and require South Carolina to continue monitoring TBAC. Finally, the Commenter noted health effects of TBAC.

    Response: EPA previously approved South Carolina's revision of its definition of VOC which added t-Butyl acetate to the list of negligibly reactive compounds that are excluded from the State's definition of VOC. 72 FR 30704 (June 4, 2007). That prior rulemaking action is final and is not reopened in the current rulemaking action. Similarly, EPA's prior 2004 (60 FR 69298) final rulemaking that revised the definition of VOC to exclude TBAC as a negligibly reactive compound and EPA's 2016 (81 FR 9339) final rulemaking that removed TBAC recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC are also not reopened in the current rulemaking action. Rather, in the current action, the State is merely updating the SIP to remove the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC consistent with EPA's 2016 rulemaking and the federal definitions in 40 CFR 51.100(s).

    With regard to health risks, EPA acknowledges the comment regarding the health effects associated with TBAC and is continuing to take steps to assess potential risks associated with this compound. In the 2016 EPA rule, EPA discussed the efforts surrounding any future determinations about the health risks associated with TBAC, including noting that data collected through the recordkeeping and reporting requirements did not appear relevant to any such future determinations and that EPA was assessing the health risks from TBAC through its Integrated Risk Information System. This effort is ongoing, and we refer the Commenter to EPA's previous 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 9339, 9341) for more information regarding health risks.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South Carolina Regulation 61-62.1, Section I—“Definitions,” effective August 25, 2017, which revises definitions applicable to the SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State's implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.2

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    IV. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is approving the aforementioned change to the South Carolina SIP, submitted on September 5, 2017, because it is consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this final action for the State of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the boundary of York County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 12, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart PP—South Carolina 2. Section 52.2120(c) is amended by revising the entry under Regulation No. 62.1 for “Section I” to read as follows:
    § 52.2120 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section I Definitions 8/25/2017 6/26/2018, [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13571 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0148; FRL-9979-69—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Revisions to the Permitting Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Dakota on October 4, 2017 related to South Dakota's Air Pollution Control Program. The October 4, 2017 submittal revises certain definitions and dates of incorporation by reference and contains new, amended and renumbered rules. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on all portions of the October 4, 2017 submittal, except for those portions of the submittal which do not belong in the SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0148. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional available information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The EPA is taking final action to approve all revisions as submitted by the State of South Dakota on October 4, 2017, with the exception of the revisions that we are not acting on, as outlined in section II.A. of our proposed rulemaking published on April 27, 2018 (83 FR 18496).

    We provided a detailed explanation of the bases for our proposed approval in our April 27, 2018 rulemaking, which will not be restated here. See 83 FR 18496. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on May 29, 2018.

    In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the rules from the State's October 4, 2017, submittal.

    II. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    The changes we are taking final action to approve are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. Specifically:

    1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter.”

    2. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Chapter 6, Section 13 creates enforceable obligations for sources by removing phrases such as “the plan shall provide” and “the plan may provide.”

    In addition, the CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Such minor NSR programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permits. States may customize the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program meets minimum requirements.

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” South Dakota's new revisions to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    III. Response to Comments

    We received three comments during the public comment period. The comments were not related to the EPA's proposed rulemaking for South Dakota's permitting program changes which was published on April 27, 2018. As such, we are not providing a response to the comments.

    IV. Final Action

    As outlined in our proposed rulemaking, the EPA finds that the addition of new, revised and removed rules to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of South Dakota and would not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act or the EPA regulations; and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve South Dakota's revisions as submitted on October 4, 2017.

    Specifically, we are taking final action to approve the following revisions: 74:36:01:01 (Definitions)— 74:36:01:01(8), 74:36:01:01(29), 74:36:01:01(67), 74:36:01:05(1) and 74:36:01:20(5), (7), and (8); 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality)—74:36:02:02, 74:36:02:03, 74:36:02:04 and 74:36:02:05; 74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes)—74:36:03:01 and 74:36:03:02; 74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources)—74:36:04:04; 74:36:06 (Regulated Air Pollutant Emissions)—74:36:06:07; 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)— 74:36:09:02 and 74:36:09:03; 74:36:10 (New Source Review)— 74:36:10:02, 74:36:10:03.01, 74:36:10:05, 74:36:10:07 and 74:36:10:08; 74:36:11 (Performance Testing)—74:36:11:01; 74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions)—74:36:12:01 and 74:36:12:03; 74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area)—74:36:18:10; 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications)—74:36:20:05; 74:36:21 (Regional Haze Program)—74:36:21:02(8), 74:36:21:04, 74:36:21:05 and 74:36:21:09.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the State of South Dakota's revisions to its state implementation plan as described in section IV. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Douglas Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart QQ—South Dakota 2. Section 52.2170(c) is amended by revising the table entries for: 74:36:01:01; 74:36:01:05; 74:36:01:20; 74:36:02:02; 74:36:02:03; 74:36:02:04; 74:36:02:05; 74:36:03:01; 74:36:03:02; 74:36:04:04; 74:36:06:07; 74:36:09:02; 74:36:09:03; 74:36:10:02; 74:36:10:03.01; 74:36:10:05; 74:36:10:07; 74:36:10:08; 74:36:11:01; 74:36:12:01; 74:36:12:03; 74:36:18:10; 74:36:20:05; 74:36:21:02; 74:36:21:04; 74:36:21:05; and 74:36:21:09 to read as follows:
    § 52.2170 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Rule No. Rule title State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA
  • effective
  • date
  • Final rule citation, date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01 Definitions 74:36:01:01 Definitions 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 Except for 74:36:01:01.(73). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01:05 Applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act defined 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01:20 Physical change in or change in the method of operation defined 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:02 Ambient Air Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:02:02 Ambient air quality standards 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:02:03 Methods of sampling and analysis 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:02:04 Ambient air monitoring network 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:02:05 Air quality monitoring requirements 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:03 Air Quality Episodes 74:36:03:01 Air pollution emergency episode 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:03:02 Episode emergency contingency plan 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:04 Operating Permits for Minor Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:04:04 Standard for issuance of a minor source operating permit 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:06 Regulated Air Pollutant Emissions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:06:07 Open burning practices prohibited 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:09 Prevention of Significant Deterioration *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:09:02 Prevention of significant deterioration 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 Except for 74:36:09:02.(10). 74:36:09:03 Public participation 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:10 New Source Review *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:10:02 Definitions 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:10:03.01 New source review preconstruction permit required 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:10:05 New source review preconstruction permit required 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:10:07 Determining credit for emissions Offsets 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:10:08 Projected actual emissions 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:11 Performance Testing 74:36:11:01 Stack performance testing or other testing methods 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:12 Control of Visible Emissions 74:36:12:01 Restrictions on visible emissions 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:12:03 Exceptions granted to alfalfa pelletizers or dehydrators 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:18 Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:18:10 Visible emission limit for construction and continuous operation activities 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:20 Construction Permits for New Sources Or Modifications *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:20:05 Standard for issuance of construction permit 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21 Regional Haze Program *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:02 Definitions 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:04 Visibility impact analysis 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 74:36:21:05 BART determination 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:09 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 9/13/2017 7/26/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 6/26/2018 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13598 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0225; FRL-9978-70] Fluroxypyr; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fluroxypyr in or on teff forage, teff grain, teff hay, and teff straw. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 26, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 27, 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-2017-0225, 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-2017-0225 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 27, 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-2017-0225, 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 October 23, 2017 (82 FR 49020) (FRL-9967-37), 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 7E8550) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of herbicide fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy) acetate] and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid] in or on teff, forage at 12.0 ppm; teff, grain at 0.5 ppm; teff, straw at 12.0 ppm; and teff, hay at 20.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, 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 changed the numerical expression of the proposed tolerance values in order to conform to current Agency policy on significant figures.

    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 fluroxypyr including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluroxypyr 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 active ingredient used in formulating end-use herbicide products is fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester. However, since the ester form has been shown to rapidly hydrolyze to the acid form, the residues of fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester along with its fluroxypyr acid metabolite (free and conjugated), are collectively expressed as “fluroxypyr” and are therefore regulated together for tolerance enforcement. In terms of toxicity, the ester and acid forms are considered the same.

    Fluroxypyr has low acute toxicity by the oral and dermal routes of exposure and moderate to mild acute toxicity by the inhalation route of exposure, based on lethality studies. Fluroxypyr is not a dermal sensitizer, nor is it irritating to the skin; however, it is a mild eye irritant.

    The kidney is the target organ for fluroxypyr following oral exposure to rats, mice, and dogs. In the rat, increased kidney weight, nephrotoxicity, and death were observed in both sexes in the 90-day feeding study, and increased kidney weight and microscopic kidney lesions were observed in both sexes in the chronic study. Increased kidney weight was also observed in maternal rats in the developmental toxicity study, and kidney effects (deaths due to renal failure; increased kidney weight, and microscopic kidney lesions) were observed in both sexes in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. Although microscopic kidney lesions were observed in dogs in the 28-day feeding study, no kidney effects or other treatment related toxicity were seen in the chronic feeding study in dogs at the same doses used in the 28-day study. Microscopic kidney lesions were observed in mice following long-term exposure.

    There was no evidence of increased susceptibility (quantitative/qualitative) following in utero exposure in rats and rabbits, or following pre and/or postnatal exposure in rats. Neither developmental toxicity nor reproductive toxicity was observed in rats. In rabbits, developmental toxicity was not observed following exposure to dose levels that resulted in maternal death; however, abortions were observed in rabbits following exposure to fluroxypyr at the limit dose. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in any of the studies. An immunotoxicity study in rats found no indication of immunotoxicity. Fluroxypyr is classified “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” due to lack of evidence to suggest carcinogenicity in the database, and there is no concern for its mutagenicity potential.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fluroxypyr 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 “Fluroxypyr: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed New Use on Teff” on pages 13-16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0225.

    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 fluroxypyr used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3328) (FRL-9371-1).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fluroxypyr, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluroxypyr tolerances in 40 CFR 180.535. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat in America” (NHANES/WWEIA) dietary survey conducted in 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues with 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all existing and proposed crop uses and default processing factors for processed commodities.

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

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for fluroxypyr. Tolerance-level residues and 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 fluroxypyr in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fluroxypyr. 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 Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluroxypyr for chronic exposures are estimated to be 540 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.055 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 540 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).

    Fluroxypyr is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential turfgrass, golf courses, parks and sports fields. Residential handler exposure was not assessed because all the labels require the use of personal-protective equipment (PPE) and are not intended for application by homeowners.

    For post-application exposure, although adults and children performing physical activities on treated turf (e.g., golfing, mowing) may receive dermal exposure to fluroxypyr residues, a quantitative risk assessment for the dermal route of exposure was not conducted since there are no toxicity findings for the short-term dermal route of exposure up to the limit dose. In addition, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not conducted because of the low acute inhalation toxicity, low vapor pressure, and the relatively low use rate.

    Young children 1 to <2 years old may receive incidental oral post-application exposure to fluroxypyr from treated turf. The post-application exposures for children playing on treated turf resulting in incidental oral exposure as a result of mouthing behaviors were assessed.

    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 fluroxypyr to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fluroxypyr does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluroxypyr 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 is no evidence of increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure in rats and rabbits or following pre and/or postnatal exposure in rats.

    Fluroxypyr is neither a developmental nor a reproductive toxicant in rats. Fluroxypyr has been evaluated for potential developmental effects in the rat and rabbit (gavage administration). Maternal toxicity included death in rats and rabbits. There were no developmental effects in the rat, and while abortions were observed in the rabbit, they occurred only at the limit dose.

    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 fluroxypyr is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr 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 chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residue estimates and assumes 100 PCT for all commodities. This assessment will not underestimate exposure/risk. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr.

    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, fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr from food and water will utilize 3.5% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1-year-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 fluroxypyr 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).

    Fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr.

    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 an aggregate MOE of 2,500 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for fluroxypyr is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is 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, fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr.

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

    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 fluroxypyr residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate GC/ECD (gas chromatography/electron-capture detection) analytical methods are available to enforce the proposed plant tolerances. The available methods for plant commodities involve extraction of fluroxypyr residues with acetone, partitioning with hexane, purification using a florisil column, and analysis of residues by GC/ECD. 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 fluroxypyr on teff.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for the combined residues of fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate] and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid] in or on teff, forage at 12 ppm; teff, grain at 0.50 ppm; teff, hay at 20 ppm; and teff, straw at 12 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) 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 under 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 § 180.535, add alphabetically the entries “Teff, forage”; “Teff, grain”; “Teff, hay”; and “Teff, straw” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.535 Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Teff, forage 12 Teff, grain 0.50 Teff, hay 20 Teff, straw 12 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2018-13724 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 228 [EPA-R10-OW-2018-0284; FRL-9979-31—Region 10] Ocean Dumping; Withdrawal of Designated Disposal Site; Grays Harbor, Washington AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to withdraw from EPA regulation and management one designated ocean dredged material disposal site, the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site, located near the mouth of Grays Harbor, Washington. This action is pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended. The disposal site was designated by the EPA for a specific one-time use in 1990. The Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site fulfilled its intended purpose in 1990 as a single-use disposal site, and monitoring indicates that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts to the marine environment once the EPA relinquishes management of the site. Five other open-water dredged material disposal sites remain in close proximity to the mouth of Grays Harbor. These sites remain available for use for the disposal of suitable dredged material and are not affected by this withdrawal.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 24, 2018 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by July 26, 2018. If the EPA receives adverse comment, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R10-OW-2018-0284; FRL-9979-31—Region 10], at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets .

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov/ index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA Region 10 Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The EPA Region 10 Library telephone number is (206) 553-1289.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bridgette Lohrman, Office of Environmental Review and Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Oregon Operations Office, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97205; (503) 326-4006, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. In 1990, the EPA designated the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site for the single purpose of serving as an ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for dredged material from the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE). The disposal site served this purpose in 1990, and the EPA is now taking the administrative action of withdrawing the site from regulation and relinquishing future management of the site. The site has not been used for disposal of dredged material since 1990 because such an action would require the EPA to re-designate the disposal site for a changed purpose. The EPA has not received any requests from the dredging community to use this site since 1990. Five other open-water dredged material disposal/placement sites remain in close proximity to the mouth of Grays Harbor. These five sites remain available for use, and are not affected by this withdrawal. The ability of the USACE, the Port of Grays Harbor, and other interested parties to find suitable dredged material disposal options will not be changed by this action. Post-disposal monitoring at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site shows that the site does not have now and will not have unacceptable adverse effects on the marine environment into the future.

    2. Does this action apply to me?

    In 1990, the EPA designated the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site to be used for a single purpose, to receive dredged material from the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel in 1990. The site has served its intended purpose and has not been available for use since 1990. If an interested party wanted to use the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site for the ocean disposal of dredged material, the EPA would need to administratively withdraw the site, designate the site with the new purpose, and provide for public comment. Thus, the current action to remove this ODMDS from EPA regulation and management does not affect any person seeking an open-water location to dispose of suitable dredged material. In addition, post-disposal monitoring at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site, conducted by the EPA and the USACE, demonstrates that the monitoring requirements set forth in the Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) of 1990 have been met, and that the EPA relinquishing management of the site will not cause an unacceptable adverse impact to the marine environment. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person or entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    3. Background a. History of Disposal Sites Near Grays Harbor, Washington

    EPA Region 10 designated both the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site and the Southwest Navigation, or 3.9-Mile Site, on July 5, 1990, for the disposal of dredged material removed during the deepening of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel by the USACE in Grays Harbor, Washington. While the Southwest Navigation Site was designated for indefinite use, the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site was designated for the single purpose of accommodating materials from the Federal navigation channel project, which was expected to occur over a two-to-three-year period beginning in 1990. The USACE disposed of 2.8 million cubic yards of dredged material at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site in 1990, and the site has not been used for the ocean disposal of dredged material since that time.

    The Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site is approximately 7.1 nautical miles (8 statute miles) offshore and west/northwest of the entrance to Grays Harbor (Figure 1). The Site is circular, with a radius of 0.40 nautical miles on a central coordinate of 46°57′ N and 124°20.06′ W. The site covers an area of approximately 0.5 square nautical miles. Water depths at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site range from 140 to 160 feet. The disposal site is characterized as being located on offshore relict gravel deposits, which contain no significant benthic fish or invertebrate communities.

    ER26JN18.115

    In the final rule (55 FR 27634, July 5, 1990) designating the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site, the EPA stated: “EPA intends to de-designate the site after dumping at the site has been completed and monitoring indicates that the material has stabilized.” This action stated that de-designation would occur within the five years following completion of disposal and monitoring activities. The USACE conducted two post-disposal surveys of the ODMDS in 1991 and 1992 in accordance with the SMMP of 1990. The results of those two surveys did not satisfy all requirements of the SMMP. Additionally, the chemical analysis of the sediments at the disposal site at that time provided conclusive data documenting the presence of dioxins/furans and other contaminants at the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site. Dioxin concentrations at the disposal site ranged from 0.49 to 1.88 [parts per trillion (pptr) dry weight TEQ (toxicity equivalent)]. These concentrations were not considered a risk to the marine environment at that time, and as a point of comparison, are well below the current marine screening level of 4 pptr dry weight TEQ, used for screening the suitability of open-water disposal of dredged material in Puget Sound today. The remote sensing data were inconclusive about the disposal mound height and areal extent. These two parameters were identified in the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site designation documents and SMMP as indicators of stabilization. The EPA determined that additional data were warranted to assess whether the disposed material from the Grays Harbor Navigation Channel Deepening Project had stabilized.

    b. Recent Events

    The EPA conducted a survey of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site on July 19, 2016 to assess the physical attributes of the site in preparation for formal withdrawal of the disposal site from EPA regulation and management. The main objective of the survey was to conduct a high-resolution multi-beam echo sounder survey to assess the bathymetry and surficial geology within and around the disposal site. The survey focused on characterizing sediments in and around the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site to determine whether dredged material had spread beyond the site boundaries or created a mound that could impact navigation. The survey area was rectangular, containing the ODMDS and a 500-foot buffer area.

    The 2016 survey revealed a disposal mound, ranging 1 to 7 feet above ambient seafloor elevations, within the ODMDS. This mound confirmed that dredged material was disposed within the ODMDS boundaries in 1990. The survey also revealed the appearance of dredged material slightly outside the northeast portion of the ODMDS. This is likely the result of movement of sediment by near-bottom currents on the seafloor after disposal was completed. The Grays Harbor Eight Mile SMMP predicted a mound on the seafloor of 10 to 15 feet from the disposal. Since the observed mound was only 1 to 7 feet high, it is likely that the seafloor currents have suspended the disposed material and redeposited it, either off the center of the mound or beyond the boundaries of the ODMDS, over time. This redistribution of disposed material from the original mound has not caused mounding of significance beyond the disposal site boundaries, based on the bathymetric survey results.

    The seafloor substrate within the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site is a mix of unconsolidated to consolidated sediments, likely ranging from mud and silts to coarse sand. The 2016 bathymetric survey indicated that the disposal mound within the ODMDS consists of softer, probably fine-grained sediments. At the peak of this mound, the sediments appear to be coarser, which may be an indication of seafloor scour or fine-grained material not settling on the seafloor but rather staying re-suspended in the water column. The grain size within the ODMDS is different from ambient grain sizes surrounding the disposal site. This is likely the result of disposal activities, and is limited to a small, discrete area within the site. Thus, any potential lasting effects on benthic infauna, or the epibenthic organisms which feed on these infauna, are negligible.

    c. This Action

    This action is an administrative procedure to formally remove the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from regulation (40 CFR 228) and EPA management. The EPA will continue to manage the Grays Harbor Southwest Navigation Site, located 3.9 nautical miles from the mouth of Grays Harbor. The Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site that will be removed from regulation and EPA management is a circle with radius 0.40 statute miles, centered at: 46°57′ N, 124°20.06′ W, based upon the North American Datum of 1927.

    4. Environmental Statutory Review—National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) a. NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA does not apply to this action because the courts have exempted the EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, determined that where the preparation of NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions, including action under the MPRSA, is appropriate, the EPA will prepare an environmental review document. The EPA's “Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents” (63 FR 58045, October 29, 1998), sets out both the policy and procedures the EPA uses when preparing such environmental review documents. The EPA has determined that no environmental review document is necessary for withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site.

    b. MSA and MMPA

    The EPA has found no evidence that the disposal of dredged material has affected the physical, chemical, or biological attributes of the Site which would impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), nor affect marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389.

    c. CZMA

    The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 to 1465, requires Federal agencies to determine whether their actions will be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved state programs. The EPA's withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from regulation will have no effect on the State of Washington's coastal zone because the disposal site is approximately four nautical miles seaward of the State's territorial sea and the EPA found no evidence that the disposal of dredged material has impacted the biological community, navigation safety, or ocean use inside or outside the disposal site.

    d. ESA

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The withdrawal from regulation of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site will have no effect on listed or threatened species or on any critical habitat. The post-disposal monitoring conducted by EPA and the USACE indicates that the site will have no physical, chemical, or biological impacts to benthic marine species.

    e. NHPA

    The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This site withdrawal will not affect any historic properties. The withdrawal of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site from EPA regulation means that management of the site by the EPA will be relinquished.

    5. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule withdraws one designated ocean dredged material disposal site pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA and 40 CFR 228.11. This action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    a. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The EPA does not reasonably anticipate collection of information from ten or more people based on the lack of use of the site since 1990. Consequently, the direct final action is not subject to the PRA.

    c. Regulatory Flexibility

    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR part 121; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the rule will only have the effect of withdrawing one site that had fulfilled its stated purpose when EPA designated the site in 1990.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. 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 various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the withdrawal from EPA regulation of the Grays Harbor Eight Mile Site will not have a direct effect on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA consulted with tribal officials in the development of this action, particularly as it relates to potential impacts to tribal trust resources and tribal operations within the Quinault Indian Nation's Usual and Accustomed Area. The Quinault Indian Nation responded to EPA's request for Tribal Consultation on April 5, 2018, stating this action does not require government-to-government consultation.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in Section 3. Background, a. History of Disposal Sites near Grays Harbor, Washington.

    h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

    i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in Section 5. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews, f. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

    k. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: May 24, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I, subchapter H of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING 1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    § 228.15 [Amended]
    2. Section 228.15 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (n)(10).
    [FR Doc. 2018-13715 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 2 and 90 [PS Docket No. 13-87; PS Docket No. 06-229, WT Docket No. 96-86, RM-11433 and RM-11577, FCC 16-111] Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's Service Rules Governing Narrowband Operations in the 769-775/799-805 MHz Bands Order on Reconsideration (Order). This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

    DATES:

    The amendments to 47 CFR 2.1033(c)(20) and 90.548(c) published at 81 FR 66830, September 29, 2016, are effective July 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Evanoff, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Bureau, at (202) 418-0848, or email: [email protected] For additional information concerning the information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, 202-418-2991, or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on March 13, 2017, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the 700 MHz interoperability testing rules contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 16-111, published at 81 FR 66830, Sept. 29, 2016. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0057. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0057, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on March 13, 2017, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR parts 2 and 90.

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0057.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

    OMB Approval Date: March 13, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2020.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

    Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, FCC Form 731.

    Form Number: FCC Form 731.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,740 respondents; 22,250 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 35 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 778,750 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $34,465,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: Commission rules require that manufacturers of certain radio frequency (RF) equipment file FCC Form 731 to obtain approval prior to marketing their equipment. Manufacturers may then market their RF equipment based on a showing of compliance with technical standards established in the FCC Rules for each type of equipment or device operated under the applicable FCC Rule part. The following types of equipment are regulated (a) the RF equipment is regulated under certain rule sections of 47 CFR part 15 and part 18, and (b) in addition, rules governing certain RF equipment operating in the licensed services also require equipment authorization as established in the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2. The RF equipment manufacturers comply with the information collection requirements by (a) Filing FCC Form 731 electronically with the Commission, or (b) Submitting the information to a Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB), which acts on behalf of the FCC to issue grants of certification and may issue grants more expeditiously than the FCC. The TCBs have flexibility in the format in which they require the collection of information (i) TCBs may require applicants to submit the required information in FCC Form 731 format or in another format selected by the TCB, but (ii) whatever the information collection method, the information required is governed by the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2 and a showing of compliance with the FCC technical standards for the specific type of equipment. RF manufacturer applicants for equipment certification may also request “expedited authorization” to market their equipment by: (a) Choosing to pay the fee levied by a TCB, and (b) submitting their request to a TCB in order for expedited authorization to market. The TCB processes the RF equipment manufacturer's application as follows: (i) The TCB receives and reviews the RF manufacturer's information submission/application; and (ii) the TCB enters the information into the FCC Equipment Authorization System database using an interface that provides the TCB with the tools to issue a standardized Grant of Equipment Authorization. Whichever method the RF manufacturers choose to submit their information—via either the FCC on FCC Form 731 or the TCB, FCC Rules require that applicants supply the following data: (a) Demographic information including Grantee name and address, contact information, etc.; (b) information specific to the equipment including FCC Identifier, equipment class, technical specifications, etc.; and (c) attachments that demonstrate compliance with FCC Rules that may include any combination of the following based on the applicable Rule parts for the equipment for which authorization is requested: (1) Identification of equipment (47 CFR 2.925); (2) attestation statements that may be required for specific equipment; (3) external photos of the equipment for which authorization is requested; (4) block diagram of the device; (5) schematics; (6) test report; (7) test setup photos; (8) Users Manual; (9) Internal Photos; (10) Parts List/Tune Up Information; (11) RF Exposure Information; (12) Operational Description; (13) Cover Letters; and, (14) Software Defined Radio/Cognitive Radio Files.

    In general, an applicant's submission is as follows: (a) FCC Form 731 includes approximately two pages covering the demographic and equipment identification information; and (b) applicants must supply additional documentation and other information, as described above, demonstrating conformance with FCC Rules, which may range from 100-1,000 pages. The supplemental information is essential to control potential interference to radio communications, which the FCC may use, as is necessary, to investigate complaints of harmful interference. In response to new technologies and in allocating spectrum, the Commission may establish new technical operating standards: (a) RF equipment manufacturers must meet the new standards to receive an equipment authorization, and (b) RF equipment manufacturers must still comply with the Commission's requirements in FCC Form 731 and demonstrate compliance as required by 47 CFR part 2 of FCC Rules. Thus, this information collection applies to a variety of RF equipment: (a) That is currently manufactured, (b) that may be manufactured in the future, and (c) that operates under varying technical standards. On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 04-165. The change requires that all paper filings required in 47 CFR Sections 2.913, 2.926(c), 2.929(c) and 2.929(d) of the rules are outdated and now must be filed electronically via the internet on FCC Form 731. The Commission believes that electronic filing speeds up application processing and supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and increase efficiency. Information on the procedures for electronically filing equipment authorization applications can be obtained from the Commission's rules, and from the internet at: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ea-app-info.htm.

    On August, 26, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission released an Order on Reconsideration, FCC 16-111, PS Docket No. 13-87 that modified Part 2 and Part 90 of the Rules for equipment approval and Private Land Mobile Radio Services. The amended rule requires all Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers who manufacture 700 MHz narrowband equipment capable of operating on the interoperability channels to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's Interoperability Technical Standards in 90.548. The Order on Reconsideration prescribed two methods stage for showing compliance with Section 90.548 after equipment authorization application approval and before the marketing and sale of equipment capable of operating on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels. Specifically, the Commission modified Section 2.1033(c)(20) to provide that before equipment operating under 47 CFR part 90 and capable of operating on the 700 MHz interoperability channels (See 47 CFR 90.531(b)(1)) may be marketed or sold, the manufacturer thereof shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with 47 CFR 90.548 and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold.

    The Commission also modified Section 90.548(c) of the Commission's rules to provide that transceivers capable of operating on the interoperability channels listed in 47 CFR 90.531(b)(1) shall not be marketed or sold until the transceiver has previously been certified for interoperability by the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; provided, however, that this requirement is suspended if the CAP is discontinued. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold. In the alternative, manufacturers may employ their own protocol for verifying compliance with Project 25 standards and determining that their product is interoperable among vendors. In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with 47 CFR 90.548.

    To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rules, no modifications to the existing FCC Form 731 Application for Equipment Authorization are required. The changes are intended to simplify the filing process, ensure equipment complies with Project 25 standards and is interoperable across vendors. The following specific methods are proposed to ensure compliance with Section 90.548 and simplify filing processes for equipment manufacturers:

    (1) The Order on Reconsideration establishes that before the marketing or sale of equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels, manufacturers shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. OMB has approved the information collections associated with P25 CAP compliance under OMB Control No. 1640-0015.1

    1 Congressional direction for a P25 compliance assessment program can be found in the COPS Law Enforcement Technologies and Interoperable Communications Program section of the Conference Report to Public Law 109-148, as well as the Science & Technology Management and Administration section of Division E of the Conference Report to Public Law 110-161.

    (2) In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with § 90.548.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13700 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 123 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 635 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2018-0017] RIN 2125-AF83 Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity Contracts for Federal-Aid Construction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA has announced that the Indefinite Delivery and Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) method of contracting, including job order contracts, for low-cost construction contracts will be allowed, without FHWA approval, under certain circumstances. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on how FHWA may further expand this contracting method on a permanent basis.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the document number at the top of this document, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-9329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this ANPRM, please contact Mr. John Huyer, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (651) 291-6111, or via email at [email protected] For legal questions, please contact Mr. Jomar Maldonado, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1373, or via email at [email protected] Office hours for the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 2, 2018,1 FHWA announced that contracting agencies no longer need to submit individual requests and work plans pursuant to Special Experimental Project No. 14 (SEP-14) for low-cost ID/IQ contracts that are awarded to the lowest responsive bidder based on an invitation for bids. The FHWA considers “low-cost contracts” to be 1- or 2-year contracts awarded to the lowest responsive bidder for construction of projects that qualify for FHWA categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (23 CFR 771.117) and where the total value of task or work orders does not exceed $2,000,000 per year. However, the ID/IQ contracting technique continues to be authorized on an experimental basis while FHWA explores rulemaking to revise FHWA's regulations to accommodate this contracting technique. This ANPRM seeks comment on how FHWA may operationalize this contracting technique on a permanent basis.

    1 83 FR 19393, May 2, 2018.

    Background

    The ID/IQ contracts are a method of contracting that allows an indefinite quantity of services for a fixed time. They are used in the Federal Government when agencies cannot determine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that the Government will require during the contract period. For construction ID/IQ contracts, contractors bid unit prices for estimated quantities of standard work items, and task orders are used to define the location and quantities for specific work. The ID/IQ contracts may be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder based on an invitation for bids or the best-value proposer based on responses to Requests for Proposals. Contracting agencies use other names for these types of contracts, including on-call contracts, area-wide contracts, continuing contracts, push-button contracts, and task order contracts. Job Order Contracts (JOCs) are a form of ID/IQ contracts that utilize a construction task catalogue with pre-priced work item descriptions and where contractors bid “mark-up rates.” The contract is awarded to the lowest responsive bidder determined by their rates.

    Although ID/IQ contracts have been specifically authorized in the Federal procurement process (48 CFR 16.5) and for the contracting of architecture and engineering (A/E) services in the Federal-aid highway program (FAHP) (23 CFR part 172), the FAHP authorization and procurement laws for construction do not address the possible use of ID/IQ contracts. The FAHP construction procurement statute, 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(1), requires contracts to be awarded by a competitive bidding process to the lowest responsive bidder (traditional design-bid-build project delivery method based upon the premise of a 100 percent-complete design and a well-defined scope of work). The ID/IQ contracts are awarded based upon a general, but not completely defined, scope of work for a geographic area and limited time period (but not specific locations, designs, or quantities) and are often awarded based upon specific evaluation criteria.

    A. Experience Under Special Experimental Project Number 14 (SEP-14)

    The FHWA has used its authority in 23 U.S.C. 502(b)(1) to test the use of ID/IQ contracts for the construction of FAHP projects through the SEP-14 Program for innovative contracting techniques. Under the SEP-14 Program, contracting agencies interested in testing an innovative contracting technique submit project-specific (or programmatic) work plans to FHWA for their implementation. The FHWA Division Office evaluates the work plan, coordinates with FHWA Headquarters, and, if it finds the work plan to be acceptable, FHWA approves the use of the technique on a temporary basis for a project or group of pilot projects. Over time, FHWA Headquarters staff assess the initiative to determine if it is a technique that should be operationalized for the FAHP on a permanent basis without the need for individual requests, work plans, and evaluation reports. Operationalizing SEP-14 experiments has taken different paths in the past based on the source of the policy warranting innovation and FHWA's risk assessment, such as FHWA-initiated memoranda (for example, cost plus time bidding and lane rental), FHWA-initiated rulemaking (for example, warranty clauses at 23 CFR 635.413), and congressionally initiated statutory amendments (for example, design-build and contractor manager/general contractor under 23 U.S.C. 112(b)(3)-(4)). More information on SEP-14 can be found at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/cqit/sep14.cfm.

    From 2007 to the present, FHWA, State departments of transportation (State DOTs), and Local Public Agencies (LPAs) through the State DOTs have experimented with the use of ID/IQ contracts and JOCs for construction. The FHWA has approved the use of this contracting method under SEP-14 for 16 different State DOTs and 6 LPAs. Evaluation reports indicate that JOCs and ID/IQ contracts allow for cost-effective contracting for small value contracts and preventive maintenance programs. Specifically, the reports indicate that these contracts eliminate the need for contracting agencies to advertise and award numerous small contracts and provide contracting agencies with wide flexibility in programming and addressing preventive maintenance needs.

    Having evaluated the use of JOCs and ID/IQ contracts for construction in the FAHP for over a decade, FHWA has now determined that they are suitable for operationalization. This is consistent with Senate report language accompanying fiscal years 2017 and 2018 appropriations to operationalize JOCs. S. Rept. No. 114-243, 43 (April 21, 2016); S. Rept. No. 115-138, 52 (July 27, 2017). The approach is also consistent with the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion regarding competition and contracting requirements. See Competitive Bidding Requirements Under the Federal-Aid Highway Program, 23 U.S.C. 112 (Aug. 23, 2013).

    B. Steps for Operationalizing ID/IQs and JOCs for Construction in the FAHP

    The FHWA is proceeding with two phases to operationalize ID/IQ contracts and JOCs for construction in the FAHP. The first phase is the issuance of an FHWA Notice on how FHWA will allow ID/IQ contracts and JOCs for construction without the need for project-specific work plans from contracting agencies. The FHWA published a Federal Register Notice requesting public comment on allowing contracting agencies to establish ID/IQ and JOCs for low-cost construction contracts at 83 FR 19393 (May 2, 2018). Please refer to that notice for details on the proposed implementation of phase one. The second phase is the initiation of this rulemaking.

    Amendments to the construction and approval regulations are necessary in order to allow the contracting technique on a permanent basis. To assist the Agency in this effort, FHWA seeks public comments on the following questions:

    1. Would it be appropriate to allow notice and award of the base ID/IQ contract or JOC prior to approval of plans, specifications and estimates, environmental review, and right-of-way clearances, but require these prior to the issuance of individual tasks?

    2. Would the allowance of time extensions be appropriate? What should be the minimum time extension length? What should be the maximum time extension length?

    3. Is the $2,000,000 per year limitation appropriate? Should this figure be indexed? If so, how?

    4. Should FHWA consider allowing ID/IQ contracts using best value considerations? What criteria (for example, past performance, quality, timeliness) should be considered for best value determinations?

    5. Should multiple award ID/IQ contracts be allowed? If so, what conditions or criteria should be used for awarding work orders?

    6. What contract term/extension limits should be allowed? Should “on-ramp” procedures be used to allow new contractors to be considered for the award pool after the initial award and “off-ramp” procedures be used to discontinue the use of contractors who are not performing satisfactorily?

    7. What procedures should be in place to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection and implementation of multiple-award ID/IQ contracts?

    8. What change conditions clause would be appropriate for ID/IQ contracts and JOCs? What would be an appropriate clause for significant changes in the character of work?

    9. How should the contracting agencies address the estimates required under 23 CFR 635.115? Would the estimate quantities be the minimum value provided under the contract, the estimate for the base contract, or the estimated maximum value under the contract including contract extensions?

    10. How would the 30 percent self-performance requirement in 23 CFR 635.116(a) apply to ID/IQ contracts and JOCs? How would it be enforced given the nature of the task orders?

    11. How should authorizations to proceed with work be given for individual task orders?

    12. What costs, benefits, and cost-savings would result from allowing this contracting technique on a permanent basis? Please submit data that would help FHWA quantify cost-effectiveness, as well as quantifiable cost-savings associated with advertising and awarding small contracts and increasing flexibility in programming, and any other efficiencies that may result from the operationalization of this contracting method.

    13. Are there any other aspects related to the use of ID/IQ contracts or JOC for construction in the FAHP that FHWA should consider?

    The FHWA will consider all responses and comments and take them into account in the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on this subject.

    Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FHWA also will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. An NPRM may be published at any time after close of the comment period.

    Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has preliminarily determined that this action would not be a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and within the meaning of the DOT regulatory policies and procedures. This action complies with E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 13771 to improve regulation. The FHWA anticipates that this rulemaking would be a deregulatory action and result in cost-savings because it proposes to remove the traditional procurement requirements for Federal-aid highway construction work for small construction work that would result in expeditious project delivery of low-cost and/or repetitive work. The FHWA seeks data on the costs, benefits, and cost-savings associated with this action.

    Based upon the information received in response to this ANPRM, FHWA intends to carefully consider the costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking. Accordingly, comments, information, and data are solicited on the economic impact of any proposed recommendation.

    This ANPRM is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), and based upon the information received in response to this ANPRM, FHWA will evaluate the effects of any action proposed on small entities. This action merely seeks information regarding the use of the ID/IQ method of contracting, including JOCs, for low-cost construction contracts. Therefore, FHWA is unable to certify at this time whether or not it will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Because of the preliminary nature of this document and lack of necessary information on costs, FHWA is unable to evaluate the effects of the potential regulatory changes in regard to imposing a Federal mandate involving expenditure by State, local, and Indian Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $151.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Nevertheless, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of this rulemaking to assess the effects on State, local, and Indian Tribal governments and the private sector.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    The FHWA will evaluate any rule that may be proposed in response to comments received to ensure that such action meets applicable standards in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA will evaluate any rule that may be proposed in response to comments received to ensure that such action meets the requirements of E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency does not, however, anticipate that any such rule would be economically significant or would present an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA will evaluate any rule that may be proposed in response to comments received to ensure that any such rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The FHWA will analyze any action that might be proposed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132, and FHWA anticipates that any action contemplated will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA also anticipates that any action taken will not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. We encourage commenters to consider these issues.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA will analyze any proposal under E.O. 13175, dated November 6, 2000. The FHWA preliminarily believes that any proposal will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not preempt Tribal law. Therefore, a Tribal summary impact statement may not be required.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. Any action that might be contemplated in subsequent phases of this proceeding will be analyzed for the purpose of the PRA for its impact upon information collection. The FHWA would be required to submit any proposed collections of information to OMB for review and approval at the time the NPRM is issued, and, accordingly, seeks public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of any proposed information collection requirements, including, but not limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information would be necessary for the performance of the functions of FHWA, including whether the information would have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collection of information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The FHWA will analyze any action that might be proposed for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) to assess whether there would be any effect on the quality of the environment.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA will analyze any proposed action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, to assess whether there would be any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this section with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 635

    Grant programs—transportation, Highways and roads, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 112 and 502; 23 CFR 635.

    Issued on June 20, 2018 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85. Brandye L. Hendrickson, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13645 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-132434-17] RIN 1545-BO12 Certain Non-Government Attorneys Not Authorized To Participate in Examinations of Books and Witnesses as a Section 6103(n) Contractor; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notification of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notification of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to administrative proceedings.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Tuesday, July 31, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Thursday, July 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present a valid photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132434-17), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132434-17), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-132434-17).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, William V. Spatz (202) 317-5461; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132434-17) that was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13206).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by June 26, 2018, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Thursday, July 19, 2018.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2018-13695 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 56 and 75 [Docket No. MSHA-2018-0016] RIN 1219-AB91 Safety Improvement Technologies for Mobile Equipment at Surface Mines, and for Belt Conveyors at Surface and Underground Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    Mining safety could be substantially improved by preventing accidents that involve mobile equipment at surface coal mines and metal and nonmetal mines and belt conveyors at surface and underground mines. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is taking a number of actions related to mobile equipment and belt conveyors to improve miners' safety, including providing technical assistance, conducting awareness campaigns, and developing best practices and training materials. MSHA is also considering the role of engineering controls that would increase the use of seatbelts, enhance equipment operators' ability to see all areas near the machine, warn equipment operators of potential collision hazards, prevent equipment operators from driving over a highwall or dump point, and help prevent entanglement hazards related to working near moving or re-energized belt conveyors. MSHA is seeking information and data on engineering controls that could reduce the risk of accidents and improve miner safety. MSHA is also seeking suggestions from stakeholders on: Best practices, training materials, policies and procedures, innovative technologies, and any other information they may have to improve safety in and around mobile equipment, and working near and around belt conveyors.

    MSHA will hold stakeholder meetings to provide the mining community an opportunity to discuss and share information about the issues raised in this notice. A separate notice announcing stakeholder meetings will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Daylight Time on December 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments must be identified with “RIN 1219-AB91” and may be sent to MSHA by any of the following methods:

    Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    Instructions: All submissions must include “RIN 1219-AB91” or “Docket No. MSHA 2018-0016.” Do not include personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed. MSHA will post all comments without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments and background information, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To review comments and background information in person go to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EDT Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Email Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go to https://www.msha.gov/subscriptions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-9441 (fax). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Mobile Equipment at Surface Mines

    Mobile equipment used at surface coal mines, surface metal and nonmetal mines, and the surface areas of underground mines is a broad category that includes bulldozers, front end loaders, service trucks, skid steers, haul trucks, and many other types of vehicles and equipment. Accidents involving mobile equipment have historically accounted for a large number of the fatalities in mining, especially in metal and nonmetal mines. In 2017, for example, nearly 40 percent of the 28 mining fatalities and more than 30 percent of injuries involved mobile equipment.

    Since 2007, 61 miners have been killed in accidents involving mobile equipment. MSHA conducted an investigation of all of these accidents. MSHA determined that contributing factors in many of these accidents included: (1) No seatbelt, seatbelt not used, or inadequate seatbelts; (2) larger vehicles striking smaller vehicles; and (3) equipment operators' difficulty in detecting the edges of highwalls or dump points, causing equipment to fall from substantial heights.

    Seatbelts

    MSHA has preliminarily determined that mobile equipment operators are more likely to survive rollover and tipping accidents when they are wearing a seatbelt. MSHA examined 38 fatal accidents that occurred since 2007 involving mobile equipment in which the deceased was not wearing a seatbelt. MSHA determined that 35 of the victims (92 percent) might have survived had they been wearing a seatbelt. The Agency believes that engineering controls could increase the use of seatbelts by equipment operators. For example, engineering control devices could ensure that mobile equipment operators use a seatbelt by affecting equipment operation in the event the operator does not fasten the seatbelt.

    Other engineering controls could increase equipment seatbelt use without impeding or halting machine operation. These controls include high-visibility seatbelt materials and warning devices, such as warning lights and audible warning signals, that remind the equipment operator to fasten the seatbelt. Some warning signals stop after a period of time; others continue until the seatbelt is fastened. Additional engineering controls could promote seatbelt usage by making equipment operation impractical or uncomfortable, or by notifying mine management if the seatbelt is not used (or not used properly).

    Large Equipment Striking Smaller Equipment

    There are areas around mobile equipment in which the equipment operator cannot see other miners, equipment, or structures (i.e., “blind areas”). Mobile equipment size and shape and the operator's cab location can each create unique blind areas. Blind areas have contributed to mobile equipment operators driving over highwalls or dump points, colliding with other equipment, and striking miners. Engineering controls, such as collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems, could provide equipment operators with additional information about their surroundings and help reduce accidents. These systems could provide warnings when other vehicles, miners, or structures pose a potential collision hazard. Collision avoidance systems could provide an additional level of safety by activating machine controls, such as automatic braking, to avoid collisions.

    Autonomous mining systems may also have the potential to improve miner safety. Autonomous mining systems, which are controlled remotely, do not require an on-board operator, thereby removing the miner from hazardous situations. In addition, autonomous mining systems are equipped with GPS technology and use enhanced safety features, such as collision avoidance systems, which can indicate the location of other nearby equipment and miners, thereby reducing striking accidents and fatalities.

    Highwalls and Dump Points

    Since 2007, there have been 20 fatal accidents in surface coal and metal and nonmetal mines involving bulldozer operators and haul truck drivers who traveled over the edge of the highwall or dump point. Systems that integrate technologies such as GPS, radar, and radio frequency identification tagging could help equipment operators better identify the edges of highwalls or dump points. Other practices, such as ground markers and aerial markers, also could help equipment operators identify their locations relative to the edges of highwalls or dump points when pushing or dumping material. Devices that provide visual, audible, or other signals could also warn equipment operators of hazards surrounding their locations.

    II. Belt Conveyors at Surface and Underground Mines

    Since 2007, there have been 17 fatalities related to working near or around belt conveyors, of which 76 percent were related to miners becoming entangled in belt drives, belt rollers, and discharge points. Factors that contribute to entanglement hazards include inadequate or missing guards, inadequate or an insufficient number of crossovers in strategic locations, and/or inappropriate lock out/tag out procedures. Systems that can sense a miner's presence in hazardous locations; ensure that machine guards are properly secured in place; and/or ensure machines are properly locked out and tagged out during maintenance would reduce fatalities.

    IV. Information Request

    MSHA is requesting information from the mining community regarding the types of engineering controls available, how to implement such engineering controls, and how these controls could be used in mobile equipment and belt conveyors to reduce accidents, fatalities and injuries. When responding—

    • Address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to questions regarding seatbelts, Question 1, would be identified as “A.1”.

    • Please provide sufficient detail in your responses to enable adequate Agency review and consideration. Where possible, include specific examples to support the rationale for your position.

    • Please identify the relevant information on which you rely. Include experiences, data models, calculations, studies and articles, and standard professional practices.

    • Please provide specific information on the technological and economic feasibility of the engineering and administrative controls included in this notice, as well as any additional controls or practices which you may suggest.

    MSHA invites comment in response to the questions below as well as on issues related specifically to the impact on small mines.

    A. Seatbelts

    Seat belt interlocks are engineering controls that prevent or otherwise affect equipment operation. MSHA is particularly interested in engineering controls that affect equipment operation when the seatbelt is not properly fastened.

    1. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with a seatbelt interlock system?

    2. Are seatbelt interlock systems available that could be retrofitted, and if so, onto which types of machines and how? What are the costs associated with retrofitting machines with these systems?

    3. Are some types of mobile equipment unsuited for use with seatbelt interlock systems, and if so, which machines and why?

    4. Reliability is the ability of a system to perform repeatedly with the same result. Please provide information on how to determine the reliability of seatbelt interlock systems.

    Some engineering controls encourage and promote seatbelt use without directly preventing or affecting equipment operation. These engineering controls include audible and visual warning devices, such as lights and buzzers/bells that remind equipment operators to fasten their seatbelts.

    5. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with these warning devices?

    B. Collision Warning Systems and Collision Avoidance Systems

    MSHA is also interested in collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems that may help prevent accidents by decreasing equipment blind areas and reducing collisions. These systems detect obstacles and provide the equipment operators with information about their location. The installation of the systems would likely need to be customized to account for variations in height, articulation, and other equipment design features. Such systems would likely also need to have the capability to adjust to mining conditions and environments such as road conditions, weather, and traffic patterns. They would also need to be designed and installed to minimize distractions such as nuisance alarms and unnecessary stops, and to be compatible with other technologies, such as GPS, radar, radio frequency identification tagging, electromagnetic systems, cameras, peer-to-peer networks, and path prediction technologies.

    6. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems?

    7. Please provide information on how collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems can protect miners, e.g., warning, stopping the equipment, or other protection. Include your rationale. Include successes or failures, if applicable.

    8. What types of mobile equipment can, and should, be equipped with collision warning and collision avoidance systems? For example, systems that work well on haul trucks may not work well on other mobile equipment; certain types of equipment may be more likely to be used near smaller vehicles; or some types of equipment may have larger blind areas.

    9. Collision warning systems and collision avoidance systems may require multiple technologies that combine positioning/location, obstacle detection, path prediction, peer-to-peer communication, or alarm functions. What combination of technologies would be most effective in surface mining conditions? Please provide your rationale.

    10. Please describe situations, if any, in which it would be appropriate to use a collision warning system rather than a collision avoidance system.

    11. Please describe any differences between a surface coal environment and a surface metal and nonmetal environment that would influence your response to the questions above.

    C. Highwall and Dump Points

    Various technologies, such as GPS, can be used to provide equipment operators better information regarding their location in relation to the edge of highwalls or dump points. Other mechanisms, such as ground markers and aerial markers, also could help equipment operators identify their location when pushing or dumping material.

    12. Which technologies or systems can prevent highwall and dump point overtravel? Please describe the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with these technologies or systems.

    13. Many surface mines use GPS on equipment for tracking, dispatching, and positioning. How can these systems be used to provide equipment operators better information on their location with respect to highwall or dump points?

    14. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with ground and aerial markers?

    D. Autonomous Mobile Equipment

    15. Please identify the types of autonomous mobile equipment in use at surface mines.

    16. Please describe the advantages and disadvantages associated with autonomous mobile equipment.

    17. Please provide information related to any experience with testing or implementing autonomous mobile equipment, including costs and benefits.

    E. Belt Conveyors

    18. What technologies are available that could provide additional protections from accidents related to working near or around belt conveyors? Can these technologies be used in surface and underground mines?

    19. Please provide information related to any experience with testing or implementing systems that sense a miner's presence in hazardous locations; ensure that machine guards are properly secured in place; and/or ensure machines are properly locked out and tagged out during maintenance. Please also include information and data on the costs and benefits associated with these systems.

    F. Training and Technical Assistance

    20. Please provide suggestions on how training can increase seatbelt use and improve equipment operators' awareness of hazards at the mine site.

    21. Please provide suggestions on how training can ensure that miners lock and tag conveyor belts before performing maintenance work.

    G. Benefits and Costs

    MSHA requests comment on the costs, benefits, and the technological and economic feasibility of suggested engineering controls to improve miners' safety. Your answers to these questions will help MSHA evaluate options and determine an appropriate course of action.

    H. Other Information

    22. Please provide any data or information that may be useful to MSHA to determine non-regulatory initiatives the Agency should explore.

    Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h).

    David G. Zatezalo, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13603 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0598] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Swim Around Charleston; Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety zone during the Swim Around Charleston, a swimming race occurring on the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina. The temporary moving safety zone is necessary to protect swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0598 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 Lieutenant Justin Heck, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 9, 2018, Kathleen Wilson notified the Coast Guard that she will be sponsoring the Swim Around Charleston on September 16, 2018 and would impact waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish a safety zone is 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina during Swim Around Charleston.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of the Wando River, Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina during Swim Around Charleston from 7:45 a.m. to 2 p.m. on September 16, 2018. Approximately 100 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) The safety zone would be enforced for only seven hours; (2) the safety zone would move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone would no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter or transit through the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit through the safety zone if authorized by the COTP or a designated representative; and (5) the COTP would provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons stated in section IV.A. above, 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 rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security 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. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less than seven hours that would prohibit entry within the safety zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L 60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T07-0598 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0598 Safety Zone; Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a moving safety zone: All waters 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race participants, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of safety vessels. The Swim Around Charleston swimming race consists of a 12 mile course that starts at Remley's Point on the Wando River in approximate position 32°48′49″ N, 79°54′27″ W, crosses the main shipping channel under the main span of the Ravenel Bridge, and finishes at the I-526 bridge and boat landing on the Ashley River in approximate position 32°50′14″ N, 80°01′23″ W. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

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

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in the Swim Around Charleston, or serving as safety vessels.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on September 16, 2018 from 7:45 a.m. until 2 p.m.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. J.W. Reed, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13679 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0427] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Lake Erie during the USA Triathlon National Championships. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Edgewater Park, Cleveland, OH, during the swim events during the multiple triathlons over the course of three days. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0427 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 LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

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

    On November 29, 2017, USA Triathlon notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on August 10, 2018, from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 2018, and from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018. The swim portion of the multiple triathlon events will be held off Edgewater Park in Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. Hazards from swim events include participants swimming in an area that has a high amount of recreational traffic and interfering with vessels intending to operate in that location, as well as swimming within approaches to public and private marinas. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim events would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event or for vessels that operate in their vicinity.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of the event participants and transiting vessels on specified waters of Lake Erie before, during and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on August 10, 2018, from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 2018, and from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie, off of Edgewater Park, Cleveland OH, inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′16″ N, 081°44′49″ W then Northwest to 41°29′34″ N, 081°45′02″ W then Northeast to 41°29′43″ N, 081°44′31″ W, then Southeast back to shore at position 41°29′28″ N, 081°44′22″ (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the schedule events over the course of the three days. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 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 involve a safety zone lasting three days that would prohibit entry within all waters of Lake Erie, off of Edgewater Park, Cleveland, OH, inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′16″ N, 081°44′49″ W then Northwest to 41°29′34″ N, 081°45′02″ W then Northeast to 41°29′43″ N, 081°44′31″ W, then Southeast back to shore at position 41°29′28″ N, 081°44′22″ (NAD 83). Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0427 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0427 Safety Zone; USA Triathlon Age Group National Championships; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, off of Edgewater Park, Cleveland OH, inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′16″ N, 081°44′49″ W then Northwest to 41°29′34″ N, 081°45′02″ W then Northeast to 41°29′43″ N, 081°44′31″ W, and Southeast back to shore at position 41°29′28″ N, 081°44′22″ (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on August 10, 2018 from 5:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 11, 2018 and from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 12, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13665 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0414; FRL-9979-91—Region 2] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Subpart 225-1, Fuel Composition and Use—Sulfur Limitations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan concerning sulfur-in-fuel limits. The intended effect of this revision is to add a regulatory mechanism for meeting the existing obligations related to regional haze. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 225-1, “Fuel Composition and Use—Sulfur Limitations” and Section 200.1, “Definitions” and, also removes an obsolete provision from the Code of Federal Regulations related to facility specific sulfur-in-fuel limits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0414, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods i.e., the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3381, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal III. Updating 40 CFR 52.1675 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur Oxides IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal consisting of revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Section 200.1, “Definitions,” which adds a definition for waste oil. EPA proposes to approve, with limitations, Subpart 225-1, “Fuel Composition and Use—Sulfur Limitations,” as contributing to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5) and the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2), and establishing a revised regulatory mechanism for New York's regional haze SIP. The EPA's proposed approval of New York's sulfur-in-fuel regulation into the SIP does not alter the EPA's prior action on New York's Regional Haze SIP, which includes emission reductions related to the sulfur-in-fuel requirements of section 19-0325 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). 77 FR 51915 (Aug. 28, 2012). The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions, requested by New York, as strengthening the effectiveness of New York's SIP.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, the EPA also is proposing to remove a section from 40 CFR 52.1675 which lists sulfur limitations for various facilities in New York. EPA has determined that these limitations have expired and/or refer to sources which have been shut down. That determination was reflected in EPA's reformatting exercise that ensured that all revisions to the New York State SIPs are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52, including 40 CFR 52.1670(d), “EPA approved State source-specific requirements.” 76 FR 41705 (July 15, 2011). In addition, the sulfur-in-fuel rule proposed for approval here requires the use of lower sulfur fuel, with lower sulfur concentrations than the limits listed in 40 CFR 52.1675. The EPA is therefore removing the existing sulfur limitations in 40 CFR 52.1675 as they are superfluous and obsolete.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of New York's Submittal

    On June 12, 2013, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to the EPA the proposed revisions to Section 200.1 and Subpart 225-1 and supplemental materials, including documentation of the comment period and public hearings, and NYSDEC's responses to public comments. These materials are in the EPA's docket for this proposal.

    Revisions to Section 200.1

    The EPA is proposing to approve Section 200.1, which includes New York's new definition for “waste oil” at 6 NYCRR 200.1(cw). This definition is relevant to Subpart 225-1 and is consistent with similar definitions of waste oil recognized by EPA.

    NYSDEC also revised 6 NYCRR 200.9, Table 1, updating the list of federal regulations referenced in the amended Subpart 225-1. In a separate rulemaking action, the EPA approved a SIP submittal from New York, dated October 12, 2011 and revised on July 25, 2016, of Section 200.9, Table 1. 81 FR 95049 (Dec. 27, 2016). That approval included the revisions to Section 200.9, Table 1, referenced in NYSDEC's June 12, 2013 submittal. We therefore have already acted on the revision to Section 200.9, Table 1, which references the amended Subpart 225-1, and we are not taking action here.

    Subpart 225-1

    New York relied on ECL section 19-0325, limiting sulfur concentrations in fuel oil, in its Regional Haze SIP and the EPA approved it as part of New York's emissions reduction plan to make reasonable progress toward reducing widespread visibility impairment. 77 FR 51915. By submitting this revision to Subpart 225-1 to the EPA for SIP approval, New York is adding a regulatory mechanism for implementing the reduced sulfur-in-fuel limits in ECL-19-0325 and the Regional Haze SIP. The EPA proposes to approve these revisions to strengthen the New York's SIP.

    Sulfur-in-Fuel Limitations

    Section 225-1.2 provides the sulfur-in-fuel limitations and are identified below.

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation that fires solid fuels are limited to the firing of solid fuel with a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2014:

    Area Solid fuel
  • (pounds of sulfur per million Btu gross
  • heat content)
  • New York City 0.2 MAX. Nassau, Rockland and Westchester Counties 0.2 MAX. Suffolk County: Towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip, and Smith Town 0.6 MAX. Erie and Niagara Counties 1.7 MAX, 1.4 AVG.* Remainder of State 2.5 MAX, 1.9 AVG *, and 1.7 AVG (ANNUAL).** * Averages are computed for each emission source by dividing the total sulfur content by the total gross heat content of all solid fuel received during any consecutive three-month period. ** Annual averages are computed for each emission source by dividing the total sulfur content by the total gross heat content of all solid fuel received during any consecutive 12-month period.

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation that fires residual oil are limited to the firing of residual oil with a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2014:

    Area Residual oil
  • (percent sulfur by weight)
  • New York City 0.30 Nassau, Rockland and Westchester Counties 0.37

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation that fires residual oil are limited to the purchase of residual oil with a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2014, and are limited to the firing of residual oil with a sulfur content listed in the table below on or after July 1, 2016:

    Area Residual oil
  • (percent sulfur by weight)
  • Suffolk County: Towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip, and Smith Town 0.50 Erie and Niagara Counties 0.50 Remainder of State 0.50

    Owners and/or operators of commercial, industrial, or residential emission sources that fire number two heating oil on or after July 1, 2012 are limited to the purchase of number two heating oil with 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight or less.

    Owners and/or operators of a stationary combustion installation that fires distillate oil other than number two heating oil are limited to the purchase of distillate oil with 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight or less on or after July 1, 2014.

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation that fires distillate oil including number two heating oil are limited to the firing of distillate oil with 0.0015 percent sulfur by weight or less on or after July 1, 2016.

    Owners and/or operators of any stationary combustion installation that fires waste oil on or after July 1, 2014 are limited to the firing of waste oil with 0.75 percent sulfur by weight or less.

    Exceptions and Variances Provided for in Subpart 225-1

    6 NYCRR Sections 225-1.3 and 225-1.4 include provisions allowing for exceptions or variances from the sulfur-in-fuel limits set forth in ECL 19-0325 and Section 225-1.2.

    Section 225-1.3 addresses exceptions to fuel limitations due to fuel shortage. It provides that NYSDEC may issue an order granting a temporary exception based on an insufficient supply of conforming fuel, provided the decision is certified by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The exception cannot exceed 45 days, unless the department permits a public hearing, after which the extension can be granted for up to one year. Section 225-1.3(e) recognizes that, pursuant to New York State Energy Law 5-117, any provisions of Section 225-1.3 may be preempted if the Governor declares that a fuel-supply emergency exists or is impending.1

    1 Section 5-117 of the New York State Energy Law concerns powers granted to the Commissioner of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) when the Governor finds there is a fuel supply emergency; the powers are authorized to the extent that they are not in conflict with federal law.

    Section 225-1.4 allows for fuel mixture or equivalent emission rate variances. Fuels with sulfur content greater than that allowed by Section 225-1.2 may be fired when the facility owner can demonstrate that sulfur dioxide emissions do not exceed the value for S calculated using the following equation:

    S = (1.1AM + 2BT)/(M + T) Where: S = Allowable sulfur dioxide emission (in pounds per million Btu) A = Sulfur in oil allowed by section 225-1.2 of this Subpart (in percent by weight) B = Average sulfur in solid fuel allowed by section 225-1.2 of this Subpart (in pounds of sulfur per million Btu gross heat content) M = Percent of total heat input from liquid fuel T = Percent of total heat input from solid fuel (including coal, coke, wood, wood waste, and refuse-derived fuel)

    Fuel mixtures and equivalent emission rate variances only apply to processes or stationary combustion installations. Compliance will be based on the total heat input from all fuels fired, including gaseous fuels. Any process or stationary combustion installation owner who chooses to fire a fuel mixture is subject to the emission and fuel monitoring requirements of Section 225-1.5.2

    2 Subpart 225-1.4 also allows variances for fuel fired to demonstrate the performance of experimental equipment and/or processes for reducing sulfur compounds from an emission source.

    In the initial approval of Part 225 into the SIP, the EPA indicated that variances adopted by the State pursuant to sections 225.2(b) and (c), 225.3, and 225.5(c) are federally enforceable only if approved by the EPA as SIP revisions. 46 FR 55690, 55693 (Nov. 12, 1981). The provisions of 225.2(b) and (c), 225.3, and 225.5(c), although now renumbered in revised Subpart 225-1, are substantively unchanged. Therefore, EPA's condition, that variances adopted pursuant to these conditions are federally enforceable only if approved by the EPA as SIP revisions, remains in effect. 81 FR 23167, 23171 (April 20, 2016); 40 CFR part 52.1670.

    The EPA proposes to approve New York's Subpart 225-1 submittal, provided that, consistent with prior approvals of Part 225, any exception or variance must to be submitted to the EPA as a source-specific SIP revision and is not federally enforceable until approved by EPA.

    III. Updating 40 CFR 52.1675 Control Strategy and Regulations: Sulfur Oxides

    40 CFR 52.1675 includes a list of special limitations of sulfur-in-fuels, adopted in the 1980s, for a variety of sources. EPA has determined that either these limits have expired or the sources have shut down. 47 FR 7662 (2/22/82); letter from NYSDEC, dated March 25, 2011, confirming the shut-down of Lovett Generating Station (a copy is in the docket for this action). EPA's determination was reflected in the reformatting exercise that ensured that all revisions to the New York State SIP are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52, including 40 CFR 52.1670(d), “EPA approved State source-specific requirements.” 76 FR 41705 (July 15, 2011). 40 CFR 52.1670(d) identifies all source-specific requirements still effective in New York State. The EPA is proposing to remove the provisions listed below from 40 CFR 52.1675 as superfluous and obsolete.

    List of special limitations from 40 CFR 52.1675(d), (f) and (g) that the EPA proposes to remove:

    (d) Section 225.3(e) of Subchapter A, Chapter III, Title 6 of New York State's Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, is disapproved since it does not provide for the type of permanent control necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of national standards.

    (f) The following applies to the Environmental Protection Agency's approval as a SIP revision of the “special limitation” promulgated by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on November 20, 1979 permitting the purchase and use by the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. of fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 1.5 percent, by weight, at units 2 and 3 of its Arthur Kill generating facility on Staten Island, New York and unit 3 of its Ravenswood generating station in Queens, New York:

    (1) On or before the “Date of Conversion” indicated below, each “Facility” indicated below shall combust only natural gas for the duration of the special limitation.

    (a) City College of New York, Amsterdam Ave. between W. 135th St. and W. 138th St., Manhattan—

    North Campus Academic Center: Converted North Campus Main Boiler (Compton Hall): Two boilers shut-down; One boiler converted;

    South Campus—Boiler Plant: Converted;

    North Campus Science and Physical Education Building: October 1, 1980.

    (b) Harlem Hospital, 135th St. and Lenox Ave., Manhattan: April 1, 1981;

    (c) Columbia University, 116th St. and Broadway, Manhattan: Converted;

    (d) New York City Housing Auth., Senator Robert F. Wagner Houses, 23-96 First Ave.: October 1, 1980;

    (e) New York City Housing Auth., Frederick Douglass Houses, 880 Columbus Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;

    (f) New York City Housing Auth., Manhattanville Houses, 549 W. 126th St., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;

    (g) New York City Housing Auth., St. Nicholas Houses, 215 W. 127th St.: October 1, 1980;

    (h) New York City Housing Auth., General Grant Houses, 1320 Amsterdam Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;

    (i) New York City Housing Auth., Harlem River Houses, 211-0-1 W. 151st Street, Manhattan: October 1, 1980;

    (j) New York City Housing Auth., Martin Luther King Towers, 90 Lenox Ave., Manhattan: October 1, 1980;

    (k) New York City Housing Auth., Drew Hamilton Houses, 210 W. 142nd Street, Manhattan: October 1, 1980.

    (2) If any of the facilities identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, fail to meet the requirements of that paragraph, the Consolidated Edison Company shall not burn fuel oil with a sulfur content in excess of 0.30 percent, by weight. For this purpose, Consolidated Edison shall maintain a reserve supply of fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.30 percent, by weight, and shall have a mechanism to switch promptly to the use of such fuel oil.

    (3) EPA's approval of this revision to the New York SIP will extend for a period of twelve months from [August 11, 1980] or such longer period limited to twelve months from the date on which fuel oil with a sulfur content exceeding 0.30 percent, by weight, is first burned at any of the affected Consolidated Edison facilities. However, once the use of high sulfur fuel oil has commenced, failure to meet any of the conversion dates specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall not extend the period of EPA approval.

    (4) On or before July 1, 1981 the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. shall displace the use of approximately 7.1 million gallons of residual oil, as projected on an annual basis, through a gas conversion program to be implemented within a two-mile radius of the Mabel Dean Bacon High School Annex monitor. Beginning on the first day of the month in which fuel oil with a sulfur content exceeding 0.30 percent, by weight, is first burned at any of the affected Consolidated Edison facilities and continuing for twelve months thereafter, the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. shall submit a report to the EPA, on a monthly basis, which includes, but is not limited to, the following information regarding this program:

    (i) The total gallonage of fuel oil capacity converted (projected to an annual amount) as of that date,

    (ii) The potential gallonage from sources at which conversion work has begun, and

    (iii) The projected gallonage from sources expected to be converted by July 1, 1981.

    (g) The Environmental Protection Agency has approved a New York State Implementation Plan revision relating to the SO2 emission limit for units 4 and 5 of Orange and Rockland Utilities' Lovett generating station. The revision which allows Lovett to burn coal at units 4 and 5 was submitted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on September 18, 1990, with additional materials submitted on April 12, 1991, and June 3, 1991. This action sets the emission limit applicable to the facility to 1.0 pound per million British thermal units (MMBtu) for units 4 and 5 if both are operated on coal, or to 1.5 lb/MMBtu for one unit if the other is operated on fuel oil, natural gas or is not operated at all, as set forth in the Certificates to Operate issued by NYSDEC on April 3, 1991. The SO2 emission limit, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the SO2 emissions are incorporated by reference into the Certificates to Operate.

    The EPA also proposes to revise 40 CFR 52.1675(e) to conform with the new nomenclature in New York's revised Subpart 225-1, and for it to read as follows:

    (e) Any exception or variance promulgated by the Commissioner under 6 NYCRR Sections 225-1.3 and 1.4 shall not exempt any person from the requirements otherwise imposed by 6 NYCRR Subpart 225-1; provided that the Administrator may approve such exception or variance as a plan revision when the provisions of this part, section 110(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 40 CFR Part 51 (relating to approval of and revisions to State implementation plans) have been satisfied with respect to such exception or variance.

    The removed sections of 40 CFR 52.1675: (d), (f) and (g), will be labeled as reserved.

    IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to approve the revisions to New York's Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations Subpart 225-1, “Fuel Composition and Use—Sulfur Limitations” and Section 200.1, “Definitions,” both effective on April 5, 2013, into New York's SIP as strengthening enforcement of the State's air pollution control regulations.

    In addition, EPA has determined that the source-specific limits in the New York's SIP at 40 CFR 52.1675(d), (f) and (g) have either expired or the affected sources have shut down and that the 52.1675 requirements are therefore superfluous and obsolete. The EPA is proposing to remove the source-specific limits from 52.1675(d), (f) and (g). The EPA also proposes to revise 40 CFR 52.1675(e) to conform with the new nomenclature in New York's revised Subpart 225-1.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed Action.

    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 8, 2018. Peter D. Lopez, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13722 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0055; FRL-9979-57—Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing volatile organic compounds (VOC) revised rules and the State's reasonably available control technology (RACT) analyses for VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX). We are proposing to approve the revised VOC rules as assisting in reaching attainment of the 2008 ozone National Air Quality Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or the standard) and as meeting the RACT requirements in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB area). We are also proposing to approve negative declarations for certain VOC source categories subject to RACT in the HGB area. The EPA also is proposing to find that the State's RACT analyses demonstrate that the HGB area meets the VOC and NOX RACT requirements for this standard.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0055, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Robert M. Todd, (214) 665-2156, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert M. Todd, 214-665-2156, [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Mr. Todd or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    I. Background

    Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) help produce ground-level ozone, or smog, which harms human health and the environment. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above include implementation of RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major source of VOC or NOX. The EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53761).

    For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe area a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or NOX, respectively. See CAA sections 182(b), 182(c), and 182(d). The EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through the issuance of CTG and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents. See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html (URL dating August 17, 2014) for a listing of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs. Any major source not covered by the presumptive CTG rule or a rule similar to the ACT must be controlled to meet RACT.

    On March 27, 2008, the EPA revised the primary and secondary Ozone (O3) standard to a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Promulgation of a NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, and to classify the NAAs at the time of designation. On May 21, 2012, the EPA established initial area designations for most areas of the country with respect to the 2008 primary and secondary eight-hour O3 NAAQS. The EPA published two rules addressing final implementation 1 and air quality designations.2 The implementation rule established classifications, associated attainment deadlines, and revoked the 1997 O3 standards for transportation conformity purposes. The designation rule finalized the NAA boundaries for areas that did not meet the 75 ppb standard. Furthermore, the finalized nonattainment areas were classified according to the severity of their O3 air quality problems as determined by each area's design value.3 The O3 classification categories were defined as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme.

    1 See 77 FR 30160 “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications Approach, Attainment Deadlines and Revocation of the 1997 Ozone Standards for Transportation Conformity Purposes.”

    2 See 77 FR 30088, “Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

    3 The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    The HGB area, which consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties in Texas, is currently designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a “moderate” classification (81 FR 90207, December 14, 2016). Originally the HGB area was classified as “marginal” (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012).4 However, the HGB area did not meet the revised attainment deadline of July 20, 2016 and was reclassified to moderate. Based on the moderate classification of the HGB area for the 2008 ozone standard, under section 182(b) of the CAA, a major stationary source in the area is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.

    4 Subsequently the attainment deadlines were revised under the marginal classification. 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015; 81 FR 26697, May 4, 2016.

    On December 29, 2016 Texas submitted its SIP demonstration that RACT for sources of VOC and NOX emissions in the HGB area is met for the 2008 NAAQS, along rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 (Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds). Texas, in its SIP analyses to identify major stationary sources of NOX and VOC reviewed the TCEQ point source emissions inventory, NSR and Clean Air Act Title V databases to locate potential sources. All sources in the Title V database that were listed as a major source for NOX or VOC emissions are included in the RACT analysis. TCEQ noted that they reviewed sources that reported actual emissions as low as 10 tpy of NOX or VOC to account for the difference between actual and potential emissions. TCEQ also noted that sites from the emissions inventory database with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25 tpy or more of NOX or VOC definition that were not identified in the Title V database and could not be verified as minor sources by other means are also included in the RACT analysis.

    II. Evaluation Reliance on Prior RACT Determination for HGB Area

    In TCEQ's December 29, 2016 SIP, Table F-1 titled “State Rules Addressing VOC RACT Requirements in CTG Reference Documents” lists VOC CTG source categories, its reference document, and state rules addressing VOC RACT requirements. Table F-2 titled “State Rules Addressing VOC RACT Requirements in ACT Reference Documents,” in TCEQ's December 29, 2016 SIP, lists state rules addressing VOC RACT in ACT reference documents. The implementation rule of March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12279), explains that States should refer to existing CTG and ACT documents as well as all relevant technical information including recent technical information received during the public comment period to determine if RACT is being applied. States may conclude, in some cases, that sources already addressed by RACT determinations to meet the 1-hour and/or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015). The EPA has approved the 30 TAC Chapter 115 VOC rules as RACT for the HGB area under the 1-hour and1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR, 52670, September 6, 2006;78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013; 79 FR 21144, April 15, 2014; 79 FR 45105, August 4, 2014; and 80 FR 16291, March 27, 2015). The EPA determined that VOC RACT is in place for all CTG and non-CTG major sources in the HGB area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 52676, September 6, 2006 and 79 FR 21144, April 15, 2014). Texas's SIP submittal relies on those EPA-approved Chapter 115 rules for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to fulfill RACT requirement for CTG and non-CTG VOC major sources for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are proposing to incorporate by reference the dockets for those decisions.5

    5 See EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0018 and EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0100, available through the Regulations.gov website at: https://www.regulations.gov/.

    We are proposing to find that the rules we approved as meeting RACT for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS also meet RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We have determined this is appropriate because the fundamental control techniques described in the CTG and ACT documents, are still applicable and a new RACT determination by Texas would result in the same or similar control technology as the RACT determinations made for the 1-hour or 1997 standard. This view is supported by the implementing rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.6 The Chapter 115 rules provide appropriate VOC emissions reductions that are equivalent to control options cited in the CTG and ACT documents and any non-CTG major sources are controlled. During the public comment period for the attainment demonstration the state received one suggestion to implement the new CTG for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry (EPA-453/B-16-001, October 2016) in the HGB area. EPA has issued a notice of proposed withdrawal; request for comment. See 83 FR 10478, March 9, 2018.

    6 See 80 FR 12279, final action and rationale and 80 FR 12280, first column, comments and responses.

    VOC RACT Analysis for Additional Controls or Newly Identified Sources

    TCEQ found that the VOC storage tank category was partially controlled and evaluated whether additional controls would be feasible and economical. They revised the storage tank rules to add more controls to meet RACT. TCEQ also identified a Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations source emitting VOCs in a quantity greater than the major source definition required under the previous NAAQS standard for the HGB area. TCEQ's analysis showed that the source met control recommendations listed in an earlier CTG document for the Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations source category and therefore met RACT. We are proposing to fully approve the submitted rules as part of the SIP to assist in achieving the 2008 ozone NAAQS and finding the revised storage tank rules meet VOC RACT for the HGB area. Below, we discuss in more detail our proposed approval of the storage tank rule revisions and the vegetable oil manufacturing processing source as meeting RACT. Please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) for additional information.

    Texas in its DFW RACT analyses for the 2008 ozone standard, found that the storage tank source category was partially controlled and additional controls were feasible and economical. We recently approved storage tank rule revisions as meeting the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the DFW area.7 The SIP requirements controlling VOC emissions from storage tanks are found in 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division 1 (Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds) and Texas revised §§ 115.112, 115.114, 115.118 and 115.119 for the HGB area to match those EPA approved for the DFW area as RACT. The major changes are to § 115.112, Control Requirements, which increases control efficiency of control devices, other than vapor recovery units or flares, from 90% to 95% for VOC storage tanks in the HGB area and expands the requirement to control VOC emissions to sources not previously covered; § 115.114, Inspection Requirements, which adds the requirement to inspect closure devices on fixed roofs tanks to prevent VOC flash gassing; § 115.118, Recordkeeping Requirements, which expands recordkeeping requirements for fixed roof crude oil and condensate storage tanks with uncontrolled VOC emissions of at least 25 tpy to the HGB area, as well as extends record retention for affected VOC storage tanks and expands the rule applicability to include the aggregate of fixed roof crude oil and condensate storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations in the HGB area; and, § 115.119, Compliance Schedules, which clarifies the responsibility for sources in the HGB area to comply and defines July 20, 2018 as the final date for owners and operators to comply with the new standards for the area. The increased control efficiency requirements; inspection, repair, and recordkeeping requirements; and expanded applicability for fixed roof crude oil and condensate storage tanks are already in place for VOC storage tanks in the DFW area. We have approved the rule changes into the state SIP and found they meet VOC RACT for the DFW area. We are proposing to incorporate by reference the docket for that decision.8

    7 We approved those rules on December 21, 2017. See 82 FR 60546. The codification of the Texas SIP approved by EPA can be found at 40 CFR 52.2270(c).

    8 See is EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0832, available through the Regulations.gov website at: https://www.regulations.gov/.

    The adopted rule revisions address RACT for both CTG and non-CTG major VOC storage tanks in the HGB area. We propose to approve the Texas submitted revisions, as described in detail in the TSD to this proposal, to the storage tank rule for the HGB area as part of the SIP and as meeting RACT for the HGB area for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS.

    In the Texas submittal, the State identified a vegetable oil manufacturing operation category in the HGB area as a major source.9 Previously, EPA had approved Texas' negative declaration for vegetable oil manufacturing operation for the HGB area for the VOC RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (79 FR 21144, April 15, 2014). In its RACT analysis for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, Texas determined that existing SIP-approved Chapter 115 rules for existing process vents and the bulk loading operations already approved as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard satisfy VOC RACT requirements for this single vegetable oil manufacturing operations source. The SIP rules are consistent with the EPA approved RACT requirements for vegetable oil processing operations in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 461.2 (current rule number 4691) (59 FR 2535, January 18, 1994). Also this source category is covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. EPA agrees with Texas that the controls for vegetable oil manufacturing operations meet RACT. Thus, we propose to approve Texas's analysis that RACT is met for the vegetable oil manufacturing operation source. For further details of the San Joaquin rule, please see the TSD.

    9 The Vegetable Oil Control Techniques Guideline was deferred regarding implementation in 1979 and it is not currently listed as an applicable source category. The Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63 Subpart GGGG) applies controls to the same manufacturing category and emission sources, has been adopted by reference into TCEQ's Chapter 113 regulations and applies to this facility.

    During the public comment period for the attainment demonstration, the state did receive a suggestion that it include the October, 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG 10 in their RACT analysis. A review of EPA's implementing memo 11 for this CTG shows Texas is required to submit revisions to the SIP two years, or sooner, after the availability of the CTG. In this case, the date of the notice of availability was October 27, 2016 (See 81 FR 74798) which did not allow adequate time for Texas to incorporate the Oil and Natural Gas CTG controls into their state rules and submit them as part of this RACT analysis. Texas therefore was not required to consider this newly issued CTG in their analysis.

    10 EPA has issued a “notice of proposed withdrawal: request for comment” indicating the agency is considering withdrawing the Oil and Natural Gas CTG. See 83 FR 10478, March 9, 2018.

    11 See “Implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry” Memorandum from Anna Marie Wood, October 20, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/implementing_reasonably_available_control_technology_requirements_for_sources_covered_by_the_2016_control_techniques_guidelines_for_the_oil_and_natural_gas_industry.pdf.

    VOC RACT Negative Declarations

    States are not required to adopt RACT limits for source categories for which no major sources exist in a nonattainment area and can submit a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration would need to assert that there are no major CTG sources in the area, and the accompanying analysis would need to support that conclusion. Texas has reviewed its emission inventory and determined that its previous negative declarations for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, surface coating for flat wood paneling, letterpress printing, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating, and rubber tire manufacturing submitted as part of its HGB Area VOC RACT SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are still applicable (79 FR 21144, April 15, 2014). We also are unaware of any sources in these CTG source categories in the area and therefore we propose to approve these negative declarations. See Table F-2 titled “State Rules Addressing VOC RACT Requirements in ACT Reference Documents.” We are also not aware of any major sources in the ACT source categories in the area and therefore we propose to agree with TCEQ's negative declaration for the ACT categories.

    HGB Area NOX RACT TCEQ Analysis

    Under CAA section 182(f) RACT is required for major sources of NOx. For NOX, the EPA has issued ACT documents that describe available control technologies but do not define presumptive RACT levels. In TCEQ's December 29, 2016 SIP, Table F-3: State Rules Addressing NO X RACT Requirements in ACT Reference Documents provides the emission source categories, the ACT reference documents, and the state rules addressing the RACT requirements for sources in the NOX ACT documents. TCEQ also identified other major NOx sources than those covered by the ACT and how the RACT requirement is addressed for them. The RACT analysis is contained in Appendix F of the TCEQ's December 29, 2016 SIP submittal as a component of the HGB 2008 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan.

    In 2013, EPA determined that NOX control measures in 30 TAC Chapter 117 met 1997 8-hour RACT requirements for major sources of NOX in the HGB area under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (78 FR 19599, April 2, 2013). Texas's SIP relies on those EPA-approved Chapter 117 rules to fulfill RACT requirements for NOX source categories that exist in the HGB area with the exception of a glass furnace. We are proposing to incorporate by reference the docket for that decision.12

    12 See is EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0100, available through the Regulations.gov website at: https://www.regulations.gov/.

    In our implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS we made clear we believed that, in some cases, new RACT determinations would “result in the same or similar control technology as the RACT determinations made for the 1-hour or 1997 standards.” This is because the fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTG and ACT documents, are still applicable. Following this line of reasoning, Texas determined the existing Chapter 117 NOX reduction regulations provide appropriate NOX emissions reductions that meet RACT emission reduction requirements and adequately incorporate ACT document controls where appropriate. As noted above, during the public comment period for the attainment demonstration, the state did receive a suggestion that it include the October, 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG in their RACT analysis. A review of the controls in the CTG indicated NOX emissions were not considered in this CTG. Texas, therefore, is not required to consider this newly issued CTG in their NOX analysis. We are proposing to find that the existing Chapter 117 rules meet the RACT requirement in the HGB area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Texas noted their review of NOX sources in the HGB area identified a facility falling under the Glass manufacturing ACT category. The source has existing controls consistent with RACT. For a full discussion of the source and the rationale for including existing controls as RACT for the HGB area please see the TSD to this proposal. Texas did not locate any major sources subject to the NOX Emission from Cement Manufacturing ACT. For all the other NOX ACT sources, excepting the glass manufacturing facility mentioned above, the state has established Chapter 117 regulations we have previously approved as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and as discussed above are proposing to find meet RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    CAA 110(l) Analysis

    CAA section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) also requires that we not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    The TCEQ provided copies of the Public Notice of proposed changes to Chapter 115 (Control of VOC Emissions), including the text published in the Texas Register and local newspapers. The TCEQ also held a public hearing on the revisions to Chapter 115 on October 24, 2016 in Houston, Texas. (More information on the public comments the state received is available in the TSD to this proposal.)

    The only change in control requirements in these revisions are the additional controls for VOC storage tanks. The remainder of the revisions provide an evaluation that with new controls on VOC storage tanks, existing controls on NOX and VOC are sufficient to meet the RACT requirements for the HGB area. The changes to the VOC storage tank rules will enhance the state's ability to come into compliance with the 2008 O3 standard. The institution of the additional control requirements would not be expected to interfere with attainment or maintenance of any other NAAQS. In sum, Texas adopted the SIP revision after reasonable notice, a public hearing, and an opportunity for public comment. We propose that the revisions enhance the SIP by providing VOC emission reductions through new requirements on storage tanks and continuing NOX and VOC RACT controls for the HGB area. The CAA 110(l) requirements are met.

    III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the RACT requirements for sources in the HGB area. Specifically, we are proposing to: (1) Find previous VOC and NOX RACT determinations made for the HGB area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour NAAQS meet RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (2) approve revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 sections described in Table 1 below into the state SIP because they assist in meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (3) find the revisions described in Table 1 below meet VOC RACT for the HGB area; and (4) find that the HGB area meets VOC and NOX RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Table 1—Summary of Substantive Revisions to 30 Tac § 115 Propoped for Approval [Subchapter B, Division 1, Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds] Section amended Amendment Comments 115.112 Control Requirements 115.112(a)(3)—minor clerical changes, changes § 60.18(b-f) to read § 60.18(b)-(f) Non substantive. 115.112(d)(5)—Minor word changes, changes “subparagraphs” to read “subparagraph” Non substantive. 115.112(d)—adds reference to compliance dates and efficiencies cited in 115.112(e)(3) Clarifies duty to comply in HGB area by July 20, 2018. 115.112(e)(3)(A)(i-iii)—increases control efficiency requirements for VOC control devices, other than flares or vapor recovery devices, from 90% efficiency to 95% efficiency as of July 20, 2018 Represents an increased level of VOC control in the HGB area on the date of implementation. 115.112(e)(5)—Word change applies the requirement to control VOC emissions from aggregated storage tanks at pipeline breakout stations in the HGB NA area Change will reduce VOC emissions in the HGB area by requiring greater control of VOC emissions from pipeline break out stations in the area. 115.112(e)(6)—Minor word changes, changes “subparagraphs” to read “subparagraph” Non substantive. 115.112(e)(7)—Adds crude oil and condensate storage tanks in HGB area to sources required to maintain flash emission control devices per manufacturer recommendations or good Engineering Practice Will aid in compliance and VOC emissions reductions. 115.114 Inspection Requirements 115.114(a)(5), adds inspection requirement of closure devices controlling VOC flash gassing on fixed roof storage tanks storing crude oil or condensate prior to custody transfer or at pipeline breakout stations in the HGB area Will reduce potential for VOC emissions in the HGB area. 115.118 Recordkeeping Requirements Changes to 115.118(a)(6)(D)—Expands the requirement to keep records detailing standards used to maintain tanks and tank closure devices to sources in the HGB NA area. This recordkeeping requirement now applies to owner/operators (O/Os) of storage tanks used to store crude oil or condensate prior to custody transfer, or at a pipeline breakout station, in the HGB area and required to control flash emissions via 115.112(e) Recordkeeping will enhance compliance and enforcement of control requirements. Changes to 115.118(a)(6)(E) expands requirement to maintain record of inspection results and required repairs in 115.112(e)(7) or 115.114(a)(5) to sources in HGB area by eliminating the phrase limiting this requirement to the Dallas-Fort Worth area and making a minor wording change to the paragraph Recordkeeping will enhance compliance and enforcement of control requirements. New requirement in 115.118(a)(7) for O/Os to maintain any record created after January 1, 2017, in the HGB NA area, for five years at a minimum Applies five-year recordkeeping requirement to affected sources in the HGB area.
  • This is expected to enhance compliance and enforcement of the rules.
  • 115.119 Compliance Schedules Changes to 115.119(a)(1), clarifies existing sources in HGB NA area should comply with control requirements in 115.112(e)(1)-(6), rather than the earlier reference to 115.112(e) in its entirety. The changes to the language distinguish between compliance dates for exiting requirements in the HGB NA area under 115.112(e)(1)-(6) and the new requirement for the HGB NA area under 115.112(e)(7) Clarifies applicability and will result in increased compliance and reduced regulatory confusion. Additional sentence expressly states the requirement to comply with 90% control efficiency requirement [see 115.112(e)(3)(A)(i)] in the HGB area no longer applies beginning July 20, 2018. Therefore, all control devices in the area must meet the 95% DRE requirement after that date. Also, some ministerial changes to conform with current formatting practices for state rules were made Represents an increased level of VOC control in the HGB area on the date of implementation.
  • Ministerial changes are non-substantive.
  • Changes to 115.119(a)(2) clarifies existing sources in HGB area should comply with control requirements in 115.112(e)(1)-(6), rather than the earlier reference to 115.112(e) in its entirety. The changes to the language distinguish between compliance dates for exiting requirements in the HGB NA area under 115.112(e)(1)-(6) and the new requirement for the HGB NA area under 115.112(e)(7) Clarifies applicability and should result in increased compliance and reduced regulatory confusion. Additional wording expressly states the requirement to comply with 90% DRE [see 115.112(e)(3)(A)(i)] is in effect in the HGB area for an affected source until the source complies with the 95% control efficiency stated in 115.112(e)(3)(A)(ii) or July 20, 2018 at the latest Full compliance represents an increased level of VOC control in the HGB NA area and will result in reduced VOC emissions in the area on the date of implementation. New paragraph 115.119(a)(3) is added requiring compliance with new control standards, inspection and record keeping requirements for affected sources in the HGB NA area as soon as practicable, but not later than July 20, 2018 Clarifies early compliance is desirable and establishes a final date to comply. Expected to simplify compliance and enforcement.
    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13651 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9979-86—Region 7] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site located in Omaha, Nebraska, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the state of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA were completed at the identified parcels. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA.

    This partial deletion pertains to 101 residential parcels. The remaining parcels will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, by one of the following methods:

    https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 Attention: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, SUPR Division or Tamara Freeman, ECO Office.

    Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    • For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: The docket contains the information that was the basis for the partial deletion, specifically the documentation regarding the results of soil cleanup activities. Information regarding the optional voluntary cleanup activities such as the lead-based paint stabilization and interior dust sampling is not provided in the docket but is available from EPA on a case-by-case basis. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy.

    All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: USEPA Region 7 Records Center at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

    The Omaha public libraries also have computer resources available to assist the public. The W Dale Clark Library, located at 215 S 15th Street, Omaha, NE 68102 is centrally located within the site boundary.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Remedial Project Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, SUPR/LMSE, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, telephone (913) 551-7939, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Background and Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region 7 is proposing to delete 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, from the NPL and is requesting public comment on this proposed action. The table of 101 Properties Proposed for the Third Partial Deletion of Properties from the Omaha Lead Superfund site 2018 (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1900) identifies specific properties included for this proposed partial deletion. The location of the 101 properties are shown on Figure 1 “2018 Partial Deletion Omaha Lead Site” (EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1895). The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, or CERLA as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund, or Fund. This partial deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List and 60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site and demonstrates how they meet the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the 101 residential parcels of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the state before developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.

    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this action prior to this publication.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The state of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, has concurred with the deletion of the 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, Omaha World Herald. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket, and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete the 101 residential parcels. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Background and Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site from the NPL, as previously identified.

    Site Background and History

    The Omaha Lead Superfund site, or OLS, [CERCLIS ID #NESFN0703481]) includes surface soils present at residential properties, child-care centers, and other residential-type properties in the city of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. The properties were contaminated as a result of deposition of aerial emissions from historic lead smelting and refining operations. The OLS encompasses the eastern portion of the greater metropolitan area in Omaha, Nebraska. The site extends from the Douglas-Sarpy County line on the south, north to Read Street and from the Missouri River on the east to 56th Street on the west. The site is centered around downtown Omaha, Nebraska, where two former lead-processing facilities operated. American Smelting and Refining Company, Inc., or ASARCO, operated a lead refinery at 500 Douglas Street in Omaha, Nebraska, for over 120 years. Aaron Ferer & Sons Company, and later Gould Electronics, Inc., operated a lead battery recycling plant located at 555 Farnam Street. Both ASARCO and Aaron Ferer/Gould facilities released lead-containing particulates into the atmosphere from their smokestacks. The lead particles were subsequently deposited on surrounding residential properties.

    Beginning in 1984, the Douglas County Health Department, or DCHD monitored ambient air quality around the ASARCO facility. This air monitoring routinely measured ambient air lead concentrations in excess of the ambient air standard. Between 1972 and 1998 the DCHD measured the blood lead level in children within the county. The results of the measurements indicated a high incidence of elevated blood lead level in children. Blood lead screening of children living in zip codes located east of 45th Street consistently exceeded 10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dl) more frequently than children living elsewhere in the county.

    In 1998, the Omaha City Council requested assistance from the EPA to address the high incidence of children found with elevated blood lead levels by the DCHD. In 1999, the EPA initiated an investigation into the lead contamination under the authority of CERCLA. On April 30, 2003, the OLS was listed on the NPL (68 FR 23077).

    The OLS includes those residential properties where EPA determined through soil sampling that soil lead levels represent an unacceptable risk to human health. Residential properties where soil sampling indicates that lead concentrations in the soil are below a level that represent an unacceptable risk are not included in the Site. Residential properties include those with high accessibility to sensitive populations (children seven years of age and younger [0 to 84 months] and pregnant or nursing women). The properties include single and multi-family dwellings, apartment complexes, child daycare facilities, vacant lots in residential areas, schools, churches, community centers, parks, greenways, and any other areas where children may be exposed to site-related contaminated media. Commercial and industrial properties are excluded from the definition of the Site.

    The residential properties proposed for deletion from the NPL site were cleaned up under both CERCLA removal and remedial authority. Regardless of the authority used for the remediation of yards, the cleanup levels for soils for all the properties proposed for deletion were the same.

    Response Actions

    The initial EPA response was conducted under CERCLA removal authority. Due to the size of the site and the very large number of individual properties, it was necessary to prioritize sites for cleanup. The prioritization was based on factors such as the elevated blood level of children at each property and the lead concentration in the soil at each property. The result was a series of action levels that reflected the priority of categories of sites. Consequently, the action level for the site changed over time from 2,500 mg/kg to 400 mg/kg, as the highest priority sites were cleaned up first. The cleanup level was established using the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic, or IEUBK model to determine the concentration to which the lead is cleaned up at each property within the site. The cleanup level for the OLS is 400 mg/kg of lead in the soil. The cleanup level of 400 mg/kg was selected to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The cleanup level has not changed, and all properties, regardless of the action level, were cleaned up to 400 mg/kg.

    Removal Activities

    Beginning in March 1999, the EPA began collecting soil samples from properties that provided licensed child daycare services. The initial removal action dated August 2, 1999, consisted of excavation and replacement of contaminated soil where the lead concentration exceeded the action levels identified in the Action Memorandum. Response actions were implemented at properties that met either of the following criteria:

    • A child seven years of age or younger (0 to 84 months) residing at the property was identified with an elevated blood level, or EBL exceeding 15 μg/dl (this EBL was reduced to 10 μg/dl in August 2001) and a soil sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant exhibited lead concentrations greater than 400 mg/kg, or

    • A property was a used as a child-care facility and a soil sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant exhibited a lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg.

    On August 22, 2002, EPA initiated a second removal action. This second removal action included all other residential type properties where the maximum non-foundation soil lead concentration exceeded an action level of 2,500 mg/kg. The 2002 Action Memorandum explicitly identifies the possibility of lead-based paint as a potential contributor to lead contamination of soils within thirty inches of the foundation of a painted structure. Due to the potential contribution of deteriorating lead-based paint near the foundations of structures, a lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg in the soil in the drip zone (areas near structure foundations) was not, in itself, sufficient to trigger soil removal. However, if a soil sample from any mid-yard quadrant exceeded the action level, soil was removed from all areas of the property exceeding the 400 mg/kg cleanup level, including the drip zone. In November 2003, EPA amended the second removal action to reduce the action level to 1,200 mg/kg. In March 2004, EPA amended the second removal action to combine the two removal actions. In March 2005, EPA amended the removal action to reduce the action level from 1,200 mg/kg to 800 mg/kg.

    At properties determined to be eligible for response under either of the Action Memoranda soil with lead concentrations greater than the cleanup level was excavated and replaced with clean soil and the excavated areas were revegetated.

    Beginning with the construction season of 2005, the scope of the removal action was expanded to address the requirements of the 2004 Interim ROD to include: (1) Stabilization of deteriorating exterior lead-based paint at properties where the continued effectiveness of the soil remediation was threatened; (2) response to interior dust at properties where interior dust lead levels exceeded applicable criteria; (3) public health education; and (4) participation in a comprehensive remedy with other agencies and organizations that addresses all identified lead hazards in the Omaha community.

    Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)—Human Health Risk Assessment

    As part of the RI/FS EPA developed a Human Health Risk Assessment, or HHRA for the site using site-specific information collected during the OLS Remedial Investigation. Lead was identified as the primary contaminant of concern. The HHRA also identified arsenic as a potential contaminant of concern, but arsenic was eliminated based on its relatively low overall risk to residents and lack of connection to the release from the industrial sources being addressed by this Superfund action.

    The risk assessment for lead focused on young children under the age of seven (0 to 84 months) who are site residents. Young children are most susceptible to lead exposure because they have higher contact rates with soil or dust, absorb lead more readily than adults, and are more sensitive to the adverse effects of lead than are older children and adults. The effect of greatest concern in children is impairment of the nervous system, including learning deficits, reduced intelligence, and adverse effects on behavior. The IEUBK model for lead in children was used to evaluate the risks posed to young children (0 to 84 months) resulting from the lead contamination at the site. Because lead does not have a nationally-approved reference dose (RfD), cancer slope factor, or other accepted toxicological factor which can be used to assess risk, standard risk assessment methods cannot be used to evaluate the health risks associated with lead contamination. The modeling results determined that there was an unacceptable risk to young children from exposure to soils above 400 mg/kg.

    In October 2008, EPA released a draft Final Remedial Investigation. Based on the 2008 data set, EPA established the boundary of the Final Focus Area for the Site. The Final Focus Area is generally bounded by Read Street to the north, 56th Street to the west, Harrison Street (Sarpy County line) to the south, and the Missouri River to the east, and encompasses 17,280 acres (27.0 square miles). By the time the Final Remedial Investigation was completed, EPA had collected soil samples from 37,076 residential properties, including 34,565 properties within the Final Focus Area's boundary. In total, 34.2 percent of properties sampled through completion of the 2008 RI had at least one mid-yard sample with a soil lead level exceeding 400 mg/kg. In addition to soil sampling, EPA collected dust samples from the interior of 159 residences to support the OLS Human Health Risk Assessment.

    Record of Decision

    EPA completed the Final Record of Decision, or ROD for the OLS in May 2009. The Remedial Action Objective is to reduce the risk of exposure of young children to lead such that an individual child, or group of similarly exposed children, have no greater than a 5 percent chance of having a blood-lead concentration exceeding 10 μg/dl. The selected remedy includes the following components:

    • Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead • Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint • Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust • Health Education • Operation of a Local Lead Hazard Registry as a type of Institutional Control

    Each of these components is described below.

    Remedial Actions Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead

    Excavation of soils was accomplished using lightweight excavation equipment and hand tools in the portions of the yard where the concentration of lead in the surface soil exceeded 400 mg/kg. Excavation continued in all quadrants, play zones, and drip zone areas exceeding 400 mg/kg lead until the residual lead concentration measured at the exposed surface of the excavation was less than 400 mg/kg in the upper foot, or less than 1,200 mg/kg at depths greater than one foot. Typically, soil excavation depths were between six and ten inches in depth. Soils in garden areas were excavated until reaching a residual concentration of less than 400 mg/kg in the upper two feet measured from the original surface, or less than 1,200 mg/kg at depths greater than two feet.

    After confirmation sampling verified that cleanup goals were achieved, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean soil to original grade and sod was placed over the remediated areas.

    EPA's remediation contractors stockpiled contaminated soil in staging areas, collected samples, and subsequently transported soil to an off-site subtitle D solid waste disposal landfill for use as daily cover and/or disposal.

    Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint

    EPA used the lead-based paint assessment protocol, presented in the Final Lead-Based Paint Recontamination Study Report prepared for the OLS, to determine eligibility for exterior lead-based paint stabilization at those properties where soil lead concentrations exceeded 400 mg/kg. At those properties where the exterior lead-based paint assessment identified a threat from deteriorating paint to the continued protectiveness of the soil remedy, the owner of the property was offered stabilization of painted surfaces on structures located on the property. Exterior lead-based paint stabilization is not mandatory and was provided to those qualifying property owners who chose to have their exterior paint stabilized. Removal of loose and flaking lead-based paint was performed using lead-safe practices as described in EPA's Renovate, Repair and Painting Rule. The practices include wet scraping, and collection of paint chips using plastic sheeting. Scraped areas were primed and all previously painted surfaces had two coats of paint applied.

    Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust

    As part of the final remedy, residents at eligible properties are provided the opportunity to have interior dust sampled. The interior dust response is not mandatory, and the resident may choose to decline. If the property owner agrees, EPA collects samples of dust from interior surfaces. The analytical data is provided to the resident/tenant in a letter and the letter informs them whether any HUD criteria are exceeded. The DCHD conducts follow up activities at any residence where the concentration of lead in the interior dust levels exceed the HUD criteria. For those residences that qualify and where the resident agrees, the residents are provided with a high-efficiency household vacuum cleaner, training on the maintenance and the importance of proper usage of the vacuum, and education on mitigation of household lead hazards. The DCHD also provides training and education regarding the need to mitigate interior dust.

    Exterior lead-based paint stabilization and interior dust response were conducted retroactively at properties where soil cleanups were performed under CERCLA removal authority, as well as to properties addressed under CERCLA remedial authority.

    Health Education

    There are a number of identified lead hazards within the OLS, not all of which are connected to the contaminant source of the OLS. To better address all potential lead sources within the OLS, a health education program was developed and continues to be implemented to increase public awareness and mitigate exposure. An active educational program continues in cooperation with agencies and organizations that include ATSDR, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, or NDHHS, DCHD, local non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties. The following, although not an exhaustive list, indicate the types of educational activities provided at the Site:

    • Support for in-home assessments for children identified with elevated blood lead levels.

    • Development and implementation of lead poisoning prevention curriculum in schools.

    • Support for efforts to increase community-wide blood lead monitoring.

    • Physicians' education for diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of lead exposure.

    • Operation of Public Information Centers to distribute information, and respond to questions about the EPA response activities and lead hazards in the community.

    • Use of mass media (television, radio, internet, print media, etc.) to distribute health education messages.

    • Development and distribution of informational tools such as fact sheets, brochures, refrigerator magnets, etc., to inform the public about lead hazards and measures that can be taken to avoid or eliminate exposure.

    Institutional Controls

    The Omaha Lead Registry, (available at www.omahalead.org) is a geographic information system, or GIS, based database that provides the public with on-line access to the status of the EPA investigation and response actions. EPA notifies residents and property owners about the information that is available through the lead hazard registry as part of the transmittal sent at the completion of soil remediation at each individual property.

    Community Involvement

    EPA worked extensively with the Omaha community through a variety of communication vehicles including, but not limited to: Local speaking engagements, participation in citizens' groups and city council meetings, local public access television, public service announcements on local cable television, coverage on radio, television, in local and national newspapers, mass mailings of informational materials, public outreach by telephone, conducting public meetings, and through the EPA website.

    EPA has been performing outreach to Omaha citizens, elected officials, school officials, health officials, the media, nonprofit groups, and others since becoming involved in the project in an effort to convey information about the hazards of lead poisoning, particularly the ways that lead affects the health of children. The EPA participated in numerous formal and informal meetings to explain EPA's role and commitment in Omaha, convey information about the Superfund process, and provide general information about the site and lead contamination. EPA responds to inquiries on a daily basis regarding the site and individual property owner's sampling results.

    In January 2004, a Community Advisory Group, or CAG was formed for the OLS site. A CAG is a committee, task force, or board made up of residents affected by a Superfund site. They provided a public forum where representatives with diverse community interests could present and discuss their needs and concerns related to the site and the cleanup process. The CAG was discontinued after the last meeting was held in October 2011. A new group, Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Group, formed. The first meeting of the Child Lead Poisoning Group was held at City Hall in May 2012. The Group is no longer active.

    Five-Year Review

    EPA completed the first Five-Year Review for the site in September 2014. Five-Year Reviews for the site are statutory. The triggering action for the Five-Year Review is the completion of the Final Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2, completed in May 2009.

    The protectiveness of the remedy was deferred in the Five-Year Review because the remedy had not been completed at all of the properties within the site boundary. However, cleanup activities at the 101 residential parcels included in this partial deletion action are complete and protective of human health. There are no issues or recommendations in the Five-Year Review related to these 101 residential parcels proposed for deletion.

    The next Five-Year Review will be completed in 2019.

    Summary of EPA Work Completed Soil Testing and Remediation

    EPA Region 7 completed the EPA lead portion of the remedial action on December 29, 2015. The city of Omaha and the DCHD will be performing the remaining field work. As of December 29, 2015, EPA collected soil samples from 42,047 properties. There are 489 remaining properties to be sampled. The EPA has obtained access to collect samples from 163 of the 489 properties.

    Based on the soil sampling results, 14,019 properties were eligible for soil remediation. The EPA remediated lead contaminated soil at 13,090 properties (93 percent) of the properties that were eligible for remediation. There are approximately 929 remaining properties that are eligible for soil remediation. The EPA obtained access to remediate fifty-one of the remaining properties.

    Lead-Based Paint Testing and Stabilization

    The EPA tested 12,057 properties for the presence of lead-based paint, or LBP. 6,782 properties qualify for LBP stabilization. The EPA completed LBP stabilization on 6,249,(92 percent) of the eligible properties.

    Dust Sampling

    The EPA collected dust samples from 3,933 properties consisting of 4,477 residences for lead contaminated dust. These numbers reflect the fact that some of the properties are multi-residence properties.

    Continuing Remedial Action

    EPA completed Cooperative Agreements with the city of Omaha and the DCHD that provide funds to allow these local government agencies to continue efforts to obtain access to the remaining properties and conduct sampling and remediation activities at those properties where they obtain access.

    Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Has Been Achieved

    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), Region 7 of the EPA finds that the 101 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (the subject of this deletion) meet the substantive criteria for deletion from the NPL. EPA has consulted with and has the concurrence of the state of Nebraska. All responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA was implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.

    The implemented remedy at the 101 residential parcels have achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 13, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13720 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 2, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 26 [FAR Case 2017-009; Docket No. 2017-0009, Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AN45 Federal Acquisition Regulation: Special Emergency Procurement Authority AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to expand special emergency procurement authorities for acquisitions of supplies or services that facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack, provide international disaster assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or support response to an emergency or major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before August 27, 2018 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2017-009 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2017-009” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2017-009”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2017-009” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405-0001.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR Case 2017-009” in all correspondence related to this case. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Camara Francis, Procurement Analyst, at 202-550-0935 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR Case 2017-009”.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to implement sections 816 and 1641 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Sections 816 and 1641 modify 41 U.S.C. 1903, Special Emergency Procurement Authority. The revisions to 41 U.S.C. 1903 establish special emergency procurement authorities to allow for higher micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds for acquisitions of supplies or services that facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attack; support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; or support responses to an emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. 5122), except that this new authority allows treatment of acquisitions, for property or a service, as a commercial item only for acquisitions to facilitate the defense against or recovery from a cyber attack against the United States.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    This proposed rule provides for the following:

    1. Definitions.

    At FAR 2.101, definitions of “emergency” and “major” disaster” were added to explain two of the new circumstances that can trigger the new emergency procurement authorities. The Defense Acquisition Regulations Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (the Councils) did not add a definition of “cyber attack” because there was no statutory definition, and the Councils did not want to limit the authority of the head of the agency to determine what constituted a cyber attack that should trigger the new authorities. There was also no statutory definition of “international disaster assistance”; however, the reference to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq. provides additional guidance.

    Under the micro-purchase threshold, paragraph (3), and simplified acquisition threshold, paragraph (1), new language was added to include the expanded special emergency procurement authorities.

    2. The new circumstances that allow exercise of the special emergency procurement authorities were added to the relevant provisions that govern the micro-purchase threshold at FAR 13.201(g)(1) and the simplified acquisition procedures for certain commercial items at FAR 13.500(c). However, only the new circumstance of acquiring supplies or services to facilitate defense against or recovery from a cyber attack was added at FAR 12.102(f)(1), because acquisitions of supplies or services under the other new circumstances are not to be treated as an acquisition of commercial items.

    3. FAR part 18 provides a summary of emergency acquisition flexibilities throughout the FAR, so the changes in parts 2, 12, and 13 are reflected in conforming changes to part 18.

    4. Other conforming changes.

    • Cyber attack was added to the policy on market research at FAR 10.001. This section already addresses market research in furtherance of disaster or emergency relief activities.

    • At FAR subpart 26.2, Disaster or Emergency Assistance Activities, a new paragraph (b) was added at FAR 26.202 to clarify the link between the Stafford Act and the increased micro-purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds.

    III. Expected Impact of the Proposed Rule and Proposed Cost Savings

    Prior to enactment of the NDAA for FY 2017, for acquisitions of supplies or services that are to be used to support a contingency operation, or to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack, agencies had the authority, as provided in FAR part 13, to utilize the higher micro-purchase threshold (MPT) of $20,000 in lieu of $3,500 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and $30,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States (except for acquisitions of construction subject to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate requirements (Construction)). Additionally, prior to the enactment of the NDAA for FY 2017, agencies had the authority, as provided in FAR part 13, to utilize the higher simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) of $750,000 in lieu of $150,000 for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and $1.5 million for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States; and utilize the higher threshold of $13 million in lieu of $7 million for use of simplified acquisition procedures (SAP) for the acquisition of commercial items (including acquisitions treated as acquisitions of commercial items to facilitate defense against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack).

    This proposed rule expands the use of the special emergency procurement authorities to apply to acquisitions of supplies or services that facilitate defense against or recovery from a cyber attack; support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; or support a response to an emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. 5122).

    DoD, GSA, and NASA have performed a regulatory cost analysis on this proposed rule. The following is a summary of the estimated public and Government cost savings, which are calculated in 2016 dollars at a 7 percent discount rate.

    Public Cost Savings

    This rule will impact all businesses that submit offers in response to Federal solicitations issued for acquisitions below the MPT and SAT, if the solicitation is for an estimated value that falls within the range between the basic MPT or SAT and the higher threshold now authorized, thereby reducing the requirements imposed on the offerors when responding to the solicitation.

    The estimated annualized public savings, using a discount rate of 7 percent is $1,327,836 (approximately $677,506 to other than small businesses and $650,330 to small business), with a present value savings of $18,969,086.

    To access the full Regulatory Cost Analysis for this rule, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, search for “FAR Case 2017-009,” click “Open Docket,” and view “Supporting Documents.”

    DoD, GSA, and NASA welcome comments on both the methodology and the analysis during the public comment period for this rule.

    IV. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule does not add any new solicitation provisions or clauses, or impact any existing provisions or clauses.

    V. 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 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 a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was 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.

    VI. Executive Order 13771

    This rule is considered to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in Section III of this preamble.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. because the rule reduces compliance burdens on small entities. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and it is summarized as follows:

    This rule implements sections 816 and 1641 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), which amend 41 U.S.C. 1903.

    This rule expands special emergency procurement authorities for acquisitions of supplies or services that—

    • Facilitate defense against or recovery from a cyber attack;

    • Provide international disaster assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or

    • Support response to an emergency or major disaster under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

    The legal authority for this rule is sections 816 and 1641 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328), which amend 41 U.S.C. 1903.

    Based on an average of contract actions reported in the Federal Procurement Data System for fiscal years 2014-2016, this rule applies to less than 100 small entities that submit offers in response to solicitations for the acquisition of supplies or services—

    • Between $3,500 and $20,000 or between $150,000 and $750,000, to support response to emergencies or major disasters in the U.S.;

    • Between $3,500 and $30,000 or between $150,000 and $1.5 million, to provide international disaster assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; and

    • Between $150,000 and $750,000 to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber attacks.

    This rule reduces compliance requirements on small entities, resulting in estimated savings to affected small entities of approximately $650,330 in the first year. The professional skill-sets previously required before these threshold increases were mid-level journeyman.

    This rule reduces burdens on small entities, based on statutorily increased special emergency procurement authority. There are no alternatives consistent with the statute that would further reduce burdens on small entities.

    The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations affected by this rule consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2017-009) in correspondence.

    VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that would 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 2, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 26

    Government procurement.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. William F. Clark, Director, Office of Government-wide, Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 2, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 26 as set forth below:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 10, 12, 13, 18, and 26 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    PART 2—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS 2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b)(2) by— a. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions “Emergency” and “Major disaster”; b. Revising paragraph (3) of the definition “Micro-purchase threshold”; and c. Revising paragraph (1) of the definition “Simplified acquisition threshold”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    2.101 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Emergency, as used in 6.208, 13.201, 13.500, 18.001, 18.202, 18.203, and subpart 26.2, means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States (42 U.S.C. 5122).

    Major disaster, as used in 6.208, 13.201, 13.500, 18.001, 18.202, 18.203, and subpart 26.2, means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which, in the determination of the President, causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Stafford Act to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby (42 U.S.C. 5122).

    Micro-purchase threshold * * *

    (3) For acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation; to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. 5122), as described in 13.201(g)(1), except for construction subject to 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter IV, Wage Rate Requirements (Construction) (41 U.S.C. 1903)—

    (i) $20,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and

    (ii) $30,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States.

    Simplified acquisition threshold means $150,000 (41 U.S.C. 134), except for—

    (1) Acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation; to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. 5122), (41 U.S.C. 1903), the term means—

    (i) $750,000 for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and

    (ii) $1.5 million for any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States; and

    PART 10—MARKET RESEARCH
    10.001 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 10.001 by removing from paragraph (a)(2)(vi)(A) “recovery from” and adding “recovery from cyber,” in its place. PART 12—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
    12.102 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 12.102 by removing from paragraph (f)(1) “recovery from” and adding “recovery from cyber,” in its place. PART 13—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 5. Amend section 13.201 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    13.201 General.

    (g)(1) For acquisitions of supplies or services that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used to support a contingency operation; to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2292 et seq.; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster (42 U.S.C. 5122), the micro-purchase threshold is—

    (i) $20,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, inside the United States; and

    (ii) $30,000 in the case of any contract to be awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside the United States.

    (2) Purchases using this authority must have a clear and direct relationship to the support of a contingency operation; or the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; international disaster assistance; or an emergency or major disaster.

    6. Amend section 13.500 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    13.500 General.

    (c) * * *

    (1) The acquisition is for commercial items that, as determined by the head of the agency, are to be used in support of a contingency operation; to facilitate the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to support a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster; or

    PART 18—EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS 7. Amend section 18.001 by— a. Revising paragraph (b); b. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d); and c. Adding a new paragraph (c).

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    18.001 Definition.

    (b) To facilitate the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack against the United States;

    (c) In support of a request from the Secretary of State or the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to facilitate the provision of international disaster assistance; or

    8. Revise section 18.202 to read as follows:
    18.202 Defense or recovery from certain events.

    (a) Micro-purchase threshold. The threshold increases when the head of the agency determines the supplies or services are to be used to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster. (See 2.101.)

    (b) Simplified acquisition threshold. The threshold increases when the head of the agency determines the supplies or services are to be used to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster. (See 2.101.)

    (c) Treating certain items as commercial. Contracting officers may treat any acquisition of supplies or services as an acquisition of commercial items if the head of the agency determines the acquisition is to be used to facilitate the defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. (See 12.102(f)(1) and 13.500(c)(2).)

    (d) Simplified procedures for certain commercial items. The threshold limits authorized for use of this authority may be increased when it is determined the acquisition is to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; to facilitate provision of international disaster assistance; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster. (See 13.500(c).)

    PART 26—OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS 9. Revise the heading for subpart 26.2 to read as follows: Subpart 26.2—Major Disaster or Emergency Assistance Activities 10. Amend section 26.202 by designating the undesignated paragraph as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    26.202 Local area preference.

    (b) When using the authority under the Stafford Act, see the definitions of “micro-purchase threshold” and “simplified acquisition threshold” in 2.101 for the authority to use an increased micro-purchase threshold and simplified acquisition threshold.

    [FR Doc. 2018-13730 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    83 123 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 21, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 26, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: Representations for CCC and FSA Loans and Authorization to File a Financing Statement and Related Documents.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0215.

    Summary of Collection: Commodity Credit Corporation and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) programs require loans be secured with collateral. The security interest is created and attaches to the collateral when: (1) Value has been given, (2) the debtor has rights in the collateral or the power to transfer rights in the collateral, and (3) the debtor has authenticated a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. In order to perfect the security interest in collateral, a financing statement must be filed according to a State's Uniform Commercial Code. The revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code deals with secured transaction for personal property. The revised Article 9 affects the manner in which the CCC and FSA, as well as any other creditor, perfect and liquidate security interests in collateral.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSA will collect information using form CCC-10. The information obtained on CCC-10 is needed to not only obtain authorization from loan applicants to file a financing statement without their signature, but also to verify the exact legal name and location of the debtor. If this information is not collected, CCC and FSA will not be able to disburse loans because a security interest would not be perfected.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 2,868.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting; On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 238.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13676 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 21, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 26, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Rural Housing Service

    Title: Community Facilities Grant Program—7 CFR 3570-B.

    OMB Control Number: 0575-0173.

    Summary of Collection: The Rural Housing Service is authorized by Section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926), as amended, to make grants to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes to develop essential community facilities and services for public use in rural areas. These facilities include schools, libraries, childcare, hospitals, clinics, assisted-living facilities, fire and rescuer stations, police stations, community centers, public buildings, and transportation. The Department of Agriculture through its Community Programs strives to ensure that facilities are available to all rural communities.

    Need and Use of the Information: Rural Development field offices will collect information from applicant/borrowers and consultants. This information is used to determine eligibility, project feasibility, and to ensure borrowers operate on a sound basis and use loan and grant funds for authorized purposes. Failure to collect the information could result in improper determinations of eligibility, improper use of funds, and or unsound loans.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 1,272.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 16,462.

    Rural Housing Service

    Title: Rural Rental Housing Program, 7 CFR part 3560.

    OMB Control Number: 0575-0189.

    Summary of Collection: The purpose of the Rural Rental Housing Program is to provide adequate, affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary rental units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households in rural areas. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is authorized to collect the information needed to administer these various programs under Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, Section 515 Rural Rental Housing, Sections 514 and 516 Farm Labor Housing loans and grants, and Section 521 Rental Assistance.

    Need and Use of the Information: Information is completed by developers and potential borrowers seeking approval of rural rental housing loans with assistance of professional such as attorneys, architects, and contractors and the operation and management of MFH properties in an affordable, decent, safe, and sanitary manner. The forms and information provide the basis for making determinations of eligibility and the need and feasibility of the proposed housing. The information collected by RHS is used to plan, manage, evaluate, and account for Government resources. The reports are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit: Individual or households; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 507,200.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Quarterly; Monthly, Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,113,828.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13697 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0096] Nuseed Americas Inc.; Availability of a Draft Plant Pest Risk Assessment and Draft Environmental Assessment for Canola Genetically Engineered for Altered Oil Profile AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is making available for public comment a draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) and draft environmental assessment (EA) for canola designated as event B0050-027, which has been genetically engineered to accumulate the long chain omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid in seed. We are making the draft PPRA and draft EA available for public review and comment.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0096.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0096, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents for this petition and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0096 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    Supporting documents for this petition are also available on the APHIS website at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml under APHIS Petition Number 17-236-01p.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Turner, Director, Environmental Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email: [email protected] To obtain copies of the petition, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 851-3892, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered (GE) organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

    The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition Number 17-236-01p) from Nuseed Americas Inc. (Nuseed) of Breckenridge, MN, seeking a determination of nonregulated status of canola (Brassica spp.) designated as event B0050-027, which has been genetically engineered to accumulate the long chain omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in seed. The Nuseed petition states that information collected during field trials and laboratory analyses indicates that B0050-027 canola is not likely to be a plant pest and therefore should not be a regulated article under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

    According to our process 1 for soliciting public comment when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status of GE organisms, APHIS accepts written comments regarding a petition once APHIS deems it complete. In a notice 2 published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2017 (82 FR 58167-58168, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0096), APHIS announced the availability of the Nuseed petition for public comment. APHIS solicited comments on the petition for 60 days ending on February 9, 2018, in order to help identify potential environmental and interrelated economic issues and impacts that APHIS may determine should be considered in our evaluation of the petition. APHIS received four comments on the petition. Two of the comments were from individuals and two were from the canola industry. APHIS has evaluated the issues raised during the comment period and, where appropriate, has provided a discussion of these issues in our draft environmental assessment (EA).

    1 On March 6, 2012, APHIS published in the Federal Register (77 FR 13258-13260, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0129) a notice describing our public review process for soliciting public comments and information when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms. To view the notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0129.

    2 To view the notice, the petition, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0096.

    After public comments are received on a completed petition, APHIS evaluates those comments and then provides a second opportunity for public involvement in our decisionmaking process. According to our public review process (see footnote 1), the second opportunity for public involvement follows one of two approaches, as described below.

    If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises no substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 1 for public involvement. Under Approach 1, APHIS announces in the Federal Register the availability of APHIS' preliminary regulatory determination along with its draft EA, preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI), and its draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) for a 30-day public review period. APHIS will evaluate any information received related to the petition and its supporting documents during the 30-day public review period.

    If APHIS decides, based on its review of the petition and its evaluation and analysis of comments received during the 60-day public comment period on the petition, that the petition involves a GE organism that raises substantive new issues, APHIS will follow Approach 2. Under Approach 2, APHIS first solicits written comments from the public on a draft EA and draft PPRA for a 30-day comment period through the publication of a Federal Register notice. Then, after reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and draft PPRA and other information, APHIS will revise the PPRA as necessary and prepare a final EA and, based on the final EA, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision document (either a FONSI or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). For this petition, we are using Approach 2.

    As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a GE organism's regulatory status, APHIS prepares a PPRA to assess the plant pest risk of the article. APHIS also prepares the appropriate environmental documentation—either an EA or an environmental impact statement—in accordance with NEPA, to provide the Agency and the public with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts that may result if the petition request is approved.

    APHIS has prepared a draft PPRA and has concluded that canola designated as event B0050-027, which has been genetically engineered to accumulate the long chain omega-3 fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in seed, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. In section 403 of the Plant Protection Act, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.

    APHIS has also prepared a draft EA in which we present two alternatives based on our analysis of data submitted by Nuseed, a review of other scientific data, field tests conducted under APHIS oversight, and comments received on the petition. APHIS is considering the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of canola designated as event B0050-027, or (2) make a determination of nonregulated status of canola designated as event B0050-027.

    The draft EA was prepared in accordance with (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    In accordance with our process for soliciting public input when considering petitions for determinations of nonregulated status for GE organisms, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments on our draft EA and our draft PPRA regarding the petition for a determination of nonregulated status from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Copies of the draft EA and the draft PPRA, as well as the previously published petition, are available as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

    After the 30-day comment period closes, APHIS will review and evaluate any information received during the comment period and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the draft EA and the draft PPRA and other information, APHIS will revise the PPRA as necessary and prepare a final EA. Based on the final EA, APHIS will prepare a NEPA decision document (either a FONSI or a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement). If a FONSI is reached, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving or denying the petition. APHIS will also publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of the GE organism and the availability of APHIS' final EA, PPRA, FONSI, and our regulatory determination.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of June 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13589 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD [Docket No. ATBCB-2012-0003] RIN 3014-AA40 Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Wheelchair Seat Height Survey AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed, new information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). With this notice, the Access Board solicits comments on its proposal to survey adult wheelchair users to gather data on their wheelchair seat heights and related demographics. Following review of comments received in response to this 60-day notice, the Access Board intends to submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget for approval of this information collection.

    DATES:

    Submit Comments by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number ATBCB-2012-0003 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 202-272-0081.

    Mail or Hand Deliver/Courier: Wendy Marshall, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: To review submitted comments or other materials in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert docket number “ATBCB-2012-0003” into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wendy Marshall, Attorney Advisor, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111. Telephone: (202) 272-0043; Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA and its implementing regulations, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each “collection of information” they conduct or sponsor. See 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; 5 CFR part 1320. “Collection of Information,” within the meaning of the PRA, includes agency-sponsored surveys that pose identical questions to ten or more persons, regardless of whether responses are mandatory or voluntary. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); see also 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Before seeking clearance from OMB, agencies are generally required to, among other things, publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning any proposed information collection and provide an opportunity for comment. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). Accordingly, the Access Board is publishing notice of the proposed PRA-covered information collection discussed below.

    A. Background: Access Board Final Rule Establishing Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment

    In January 2017, the Access Board issued a final rule that established accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment (MDE) used by health care providers—such as, examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment—to ensure that such equipment is accessible to, and usable by, persons with disabilities. 82 FR 2810. See Final Rule—Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment, 82 FR 2810 (Jan. 9, 2017) (codified at 36 CFR part 1195) (hereafter, “MDE Standards”).

    Among other things, the MDE Standards establish accessibility criteria relating to the height and adjustability of transfer surfaces on medical diagnostic equipment. Diagnostic equipment used by patients in supine, prone, side-lying or seated positions generally must have height-adjustable transfer surfaces with at least six specified positions: A low transfer height position (at 17-19 inches), A high transfer height position (at 25 inches), and four intermediate positions (separated by at least 1 inch). See 36 CFR 1195.1, Appendix, M301.2, M302.1. Height adjustability is critical for diagnostic equipment because research studies have shown that level (or near-level) transfer—that is, transfer to/from a wheeled mobility device to a surface that is at or near the same level vertically as the seat/seat cushion of that device—are easiest and require less exertion compared with “uphill” or “downhill” transfers. Specification of a height-adjustable range for transfer surfaces in the MDE Standards thus facilitates independent and semi-independent transfer to and from medical diagnostic equipment by patients with disabilities, enhances patient safety, and reduces the risk of injury for medical staff and caregivers.

    Notably, as stated in the preamble to the final rule, the 17-to-19-inch height range for the low transfer height position is intended to be an interim standard only. See Final Rule, 82 FR at 2816 & 2831. The Access Board established an interim height-range specification for the low transfer position—as compared to a height-specific standard such as that specified for the high transfer height position—due to divergent views expressed by commenters (including disability advocates, academics, medical equipment manufacturers) concerning the appropriate minimum height for the low transfer position for medical diagnostic equipment. Id. at 2814-16 & 2831. Several academics and disability advocates opined that a 17-inch low height would provide the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to transfer independently. Id. at 2814-15. Manufacturers of medical diagnostic equipment, on the other hand, expressed a strong preference for a 19-inch low height because this transfer height was viewed as cost effective and consistent with the Board's other existing accessibility guidelines. Id. The advisory committee empaneled by the Access Board to provide recommendations for final MDE Standards also failed to reach consensus on a recommendation for a specific low transfer height. Id. at 2815-16.

    Therefore, in the final rule, the Access Board declined to specify a single minimum-low-height requirement in the MDE Standards, explaining that “there is insufficient data on the extent to which and how many individuals would benefit from a transfer height lower than 19 inches.” Id. at 2816. Consequently, the MDE Standards specify a 17-to-19-inch height range as a “temporary solution” for the low height transfer position, with this height-range specification “sunsetting” five years after publication of the final rule (i.e., January 2022). Id. at 2816 & 2831. We also noted, at that time, our intent to use this intervening period to commission research studies or otherwise garner additional information aimed at better elucidating the number of wheelchair users for whom a transfer surface positioned at a height less than 19 inches would likely provide improved access relative to higher transfer surfaces. Id. Informed by this additional information, the Access Board intends to initiate rulemaking—before the end of the sunset period—to revise the existing provisions in the MDE Standards that specify minimum height ranges for the low transfer position on medical diagnostic equipment. Id.

    B. Wheelchair Seat Height Survey

    The Access Board is authorized under section 510 of the Rehabilitation Act to develop (and periodically revise, as needed) minimum technical criteria for accessible medical diagnostic equipment used in healthcare settings. See 29 U.S.C. 794f. More generally, section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act also tasks the agency with promoting accessibility throughout society, as well as investigating and examining alternative approaches to various types of barriers confronting Americans with disabilities. Id. §§ 792(b)(4) & (b)(5).

    In keeping with its statutory responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act, the Access Board intends to conduct a national survey of adult wheelchair users to gather data on the seat height of their respective wheelchairs, as well as related demographic information. Data from this survey will be used to help inform the Board's subsequent rulemaking to update the MDE Standards through establishment of a minimum low transfer height position for medical diagnostic equipment. Additionally, the data and other information garnered from this survey will give the agency a better understanding of the adult, wheelchair-using population in the United States, and, thereby, aid our efforts to promote accessibility throughout American society and provide leadership in accessible design. To our knowledge, no published research or statistical compilations exist that examine adult wheelchair users' respective seat heights on a nationally-representative basis. The Access Board's wheelchair seat height survey aims to address this knowledge and statistical gap.

    The Access Board has contracted with the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDeA Center) at the State University of New York at Buffalo to administer this wheelchair seat height survey and analyze the resulting data. The survey instrument is designed to capture the compressed seat height of each respondent's wheelchair, as well as basic demographic information about each respondent (e.g., age, gender, geographic location, wheelchair type, nature of disability). The IDeA Center will use the results from this survey to, among other things, complete a cross-sectional study designed to estimate the prevalence of wheelchair users in the United States with seat heights below 19 inches.

    The survey instrument will be distributed primarily via electronic mail, with an embedded link to a web-based survey. (Email and/or regular mail will be used to follow-up with individuals who have not completed the survey.) Targeted field studies may also be employed, as needed, to supplement the pool of survey respondents. Electronic invitations to participate in the survey will be sent to approximately 20,000 self-identified wheelchair users around the country using email addresses from a commercial database. Participation in the survey will be completely voluntary, and individuals may complete the survey at their own convenience. All survey responses will be anonymous.

    C. Burden Estimates

    The Access Board estimates that it will take respondents approximately 15 minutes to complete the brief, one-time survey instrument. This estimate includes the needed for reviewing survey instructions, locating a measuring device and helper/assistant, measuring seat height, and completing the survey instrument. We project that about 2,000 individuals will submit responses to this survey. Total estimated annual burden hours for this survey is, therefore, 500 hours (.25 hours × 2,000).

    D. Request for Comments

    The Access Board seeks comment on any aspect of its proposed wheelchair seat height survey, including: (a) The necessity of this survey to the Access Board's performance; (b) the accuracy of our burden estimates; (c) methods of minimizing this burden without reducing the quality of the collected data; and (d) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, or clarity of the survey instrument. All relevant comments submitted to the Access Board will be summarized and included in our request for OMB approval of this information collection, as required under the PRA.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13625 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    July 11, 2018, 1:00 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 910. The Board will discuss open investigations, the status of audits from the Office of the Inspector General, financial and organizational updates, and a review of the agency's action plan. New business will include the release of the 2018-2021 Human Capital Plan.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the Contact Person for Further Information, at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference:

    Dial-In: (888) 862-6557 Confirmation Number: 47179969

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating incidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information:

    Amy McCormick Driver, at [email protected] or (202) 261-7630. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB website at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: June 22, 2018. Raymond Porfiri, Deputy General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13872 Filed 6-22-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Notice of Charter Renewal of the U.S. Investment Advisory Council and Soliciting Nominations for Members AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Global Markets, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 6, 2018, the Department of Commerce Acting Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration renewed the charter for the United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) for a two-year period, ending April 5, 2020. The Council is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    DATES:

    All applications for immediate consideration for appointment must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Friday, July 27, 2018. After that date, applications will be accepted under this notice for a period of up to two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit applications by email to [email protected], attention: Steven Meyers, SelectUSA, United States Investment Advisory Council Executive Secretariat, or by mail to Steven Meyers, SelectUSA, United States Investment Advisory Council, Room 30032, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Meyers, Designated Federal Officer, SelectUSA, Room 30032, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-2612 email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Investment Advisory Council (Council) was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to duties imposed by 15 U.S.C. 1512 upon the Department and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.

    The Council functions solely as an advisory committee in accordance with the provisions of FACA. In particular, the Council advises the Secretary on government policies and programs that affect foreign direct investment (FDI), identifies and recommends programs and policies to help the United States attract and retain FDI, and recommends ways to support the United States in remaining the world's preeminent destination for FDI. The Council acts as a liaison among the stakeholders represented by the membership and provides a forum for the stakeholders on current and emerging issues regarding FDI.

    The Council reports to the Secretary of Commerce on its activities and recommendations regarding FDI. In creating its reports, the Council is to survey and evaluate the investment and investment-facilitating activities of stakeholders, identify and examine specific problems facing potential foreign investors, and examine the needs of stakeholders to inform the Council's efforts. The Council is to recommend specific solutions to the problems and needs that it identifies.

    Each member is to be appointed for a term of two years and serves at the pleasure of the Secretary. The Secretary may at his/her discretion reappoint any member to an additional term or terms, provided that the member proves to work effectively on the Council and his/her knowledge and advice is still needed.

    The Council consists of no more than twenty members appointed by the Secretary. Members are to represent companies and organizations investing, seeking to invest, seeking foreign investors, or facilitating investment across many sectors, including but not limited to:

    • U.S.-incorporated companies that are majority-owned by foreign companies or by a foreign individual or individuals, or that generate significant foreign direct investment (e.g., through their supply chains);

    • Companies or entities whose business includes FDI-related activities or the facilitation of FDI; and

    • Economic development organizations and other U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations and associations whose missions or activities include the promotion or facilitation of FDI.

    Members are selected based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Council, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, in a manner that ensures that the Council is balanced in terms of points of view, industry subsector, organization type, geography of the source and the destination of the FDI, and company size. Members are to represent a broad range of products and services and be drawn from large, medium, and small enterprises, private-sector organizations involved in investment, and other investment-related entities including non-governmental organizations, associations, and economic development organizations.

    In selecting members, priority may be given to the selection of executives, i.e., Chief Executive Officer, Executive Chairman, President, or an officer with a comparable level of responsibility. Members serve in a representative capacity, representing the views and interests of their sponsoring entity and those of their particular sector (if applicable). Members are not special government employees and will receive no compensation for their participation in Council activities. Members will not be reimbursed for travel expenses related to Council activities. Appointments to the Council shall be made without regard to political affiliation. All members must be a U.S. national.

    The Secretary designates a Chair and Vice Chair from among the members. The Council will meet a minimum of two times a year, to the extent practical, with additional meetings called at the discretion of the Secretary or his/her designee. Meetings will be held in Washington, DC or elsewhere in the United States, or by teleconference, as feasible. Members are expected to attend a majority of Council meetings.

    To be considered for membership, submit the following information by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Friday, July 27, 2018 to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section:

    1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.

    2. A sponsor letter from the applicant on the sponsoring entity's letterhead containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the Council. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant's experience and leadership related to foreign direct investment.

    3. The applicant's personal resume and short bio (less than 300 words).

    4. An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all eligibility criteria, including an affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    5. Information regarding the ownership and control of the sponsoring entity, including the stock holdings as appropriate.

    6. The sponsoring entity's size, place of incorporation, product or service line, major markets in which the entity operates, and the entity's export or import experience.

    7. A profile of the entity's foreign direct investment activities, including investment activities, investment plans, investment-facilitation activities, or other foreign direct investment activities.

    8. Brief statement describing how the applicant will contribute to the work of the Council based on his or her unique experience and perspective (not to exceed 100 words).

    9. All relevant contact information, including mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant.

    Anthony Diaz, Program Analyst, Global Markets, International Trade Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13546 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-929] Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 16, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (China). Based on the timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies, we are now rescinding this administrative review for the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, with respect to 191 companies.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973 or (202) 482-0131, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 26, 2009, Commerce published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from China.1 On February 1, 2018, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from China for the period of review February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018.2

    1See Antidumping Duty Order: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 8775 (February 26, 2009).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 83 FR 4639 (February 1, 2018).

    On February 28, 2018, Tokai Carbon GE LLC (the petitioner) 3 requested an administrative review of the order for 192 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise, including Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.4 In addition, on February 28, 2018, producer and exporter Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. requested a review of itself.5 On April 16, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the order on small diameter graphite electrodes from China with respect to 193 companies.6 On May 4, 2018, the petitioner withdrew its administrative review request for 191 out of the 192 companies for which it requested a review.7 See the Initiation Notice for the full list of companies for which Commerce initiated a review.

    3 Formerly, SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co.

    4See the petitioner's submission, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China—Request for Initiation of Antidumping Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2018. The petitioner's review request included Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (emphasis added).

    5See Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.'s, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Request for an Administrative Review,” dated February 28, 2018. For purposes of this review, we are treating Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. and Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. as the same respondent company.

    6See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 16298 (April 16, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    7See the petitioner's submission, “Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China—Petitioner's Withdrawal of Certain Requests for Review,” dated May 4, 2018. The petitioner withdrew its review request with respect to all companies except for Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioner timely withdrew its review request, in part, by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for the companies for which the petitioner withdrew its review request. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from China for the period February 1, 2017, through January 31, 2018, with respect to the 191 companies for which all review requests were withdrawn. The review will continue only with respect to the remaining company Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd, aka Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd.8

    8 In a prior administrative review of electrodes from China, we found that Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. is the same entity as Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. See, e.g., Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 40854, 40856 n.3 (July 11, 2012). Consistent with this determination, and in the absence thus far of contrary evidence, we are treating these companies as the same entity. See also Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes form the People's Republic of China—Respondent Selection,” dated May 15, 2018.

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed on the subject merchandise at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 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), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: June 19, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13671 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-864] Steel Propane Cylinders From Taiwan: Termination of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on Worthington Industries and Manchester Tank & Equipment Co.'s (the petitioners) withdrawal of the antidumping duty (AD) petition on steel propane cylinders from Taiwan, we are terminating the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4243.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 22, 2018, Commerce received AD petitions concerning imports of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan and Thailand, filed on behalf of the petitioners.1 On June 11, 2018, Commerce initiated the LTFV investigations of steel propane cylinders from China, Taiwan and Thailand, which were published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2018.2 On June 14, 2018, the petitioners submitted a letter withdrawing the AD petition with respect to Taiwan.3 Section 351.207(b)(1) of Commerce's regulations stipulates that the Secretary may terminate an investigation, provided it has concluded that termination of the investigation is in the public interest.4 Because the petitioners have withdrawn their May 22, 2017, AD petition with respect to Taiwan, and have requested that Commerce terminate this investigation, we determine that termination of this investigation is in the public interest, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.207(b)(1).5 Accordingly, pursuant to section 734(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.207(b)(1), we are terminating the LTFV investigation with respect to Taiwan.

    1See the petitioners' letter, “Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand: Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,” dated May 22, 2018 (the Petition). For the purposes of the instant notice, all references to `the Petition' refer specifically to the AD Petition with respect to Taiwan.

    2See Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 83 FR 28196 (June 18, 2018).

    3See the petitioners' letter, “Steel Propane Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Thailand: Withdrawal of Taiwan Antidumping Duty Petition,” dated June 14, 2018.

    4See 19 CFR 351.207(b)(1).

    5See Withdrawal Letter at 1-2.

    Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with section 734(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.207(b)(1), upon the petitioners' withdrawal of the Taiwan petition, we are terminating the LTFV investigation of steel propane cylinders from Taiwan.

    Dated: June 20, 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. 2018-13675 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-069, A-549-835] Rubber Bands From the People's Republic of China and Thailand: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable June 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Berger at (202) 482-2483 (People's Republic of China (China)) and Laurel LaCivita at (202) 482-4243 (Thailand), 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 20, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of imports of rubber bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.1 On March 19, 2018, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) notified Commerce of its affirmative preliminary determination with respect to China and Thailand, its negligibility determination concerning imports of rubber bands from Sri Lanka, and its termination of its investigation of imports from Sri Lanka.2 On March 22, the ITC published in the Federal Register a notice of its preliminary determination with respect to China and Thailand, and its determination that imports of rubber bands from Sri Lanka are negligible.3 Because the ITC has terminated its investigation of rubber bands from Sri Lanka, Commerce's investigation is also terminated.4 The preliminary determinations for China and Thailand are currently due no later than July 10, 2017.

    1See Rubber Bands from the People's Republic of China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 83 FR 8424 (February 27, 2018).

    2See the ITC's letter dated March 19, 2018 (Notification of ITC Preliminary Determinations); see also Rubber Bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; Determinations, 83 FR 12594 (March 22, 2018); see also ITC publication 4770 (March 2018), Rubber Bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-598-600 and 731-TA-1408-1410 (Preliminary) at page 1.

    3See Rubber Bands from China, Sri Lanka, and Thailand; Determinations, 83 FR 12594 (March 22, 2018).

    4See 19 CFR 351.207(d) (stating that Commerce's investigation terminates automatically upon the publication in the Federal Register of the ITC's negative preliminary determination).

    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 petitioner makes 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 petitioner 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.5

    5See 19 CFR 351.205(e).

    On June 11, 2018, Alliance Rubber Co. (the petitioner) submitted timely requests pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determinations in these LTFV investigations.6 The petitioner stated that it requested postponement because Commerce is still conducting its antidumping investigations, and additional time is necessary for interested parties to respond to additional requests from Commerce.

    6See letter from the petitioner, “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Rubber Bands from Thailand and China—Petitioner's Request for Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping Duty Cases,” dated June 11, 2018.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the petitioner's request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, Commerce will issue its preliminary determinations no later than August 29, 2018. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, 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 20, 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. 2018-13672 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF830 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction at the City Dock and Ferry Terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; Issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during construction activities associated with a city dock and ferry terminal improvement project in Tenakee Springs, Alaska.

    DATES:

    This Authorization is applicable from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Molineaux, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-construction-activities. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking shall have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), shall not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

    The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Summary of Request

    On October 23, 2017, NMFS received a request from ADOT&PF for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting improvements at the Tenakee Springs city dock and ferry terminal, in Tenakee Springs, Alaska. The application was considered adequate and complete on January 30, 2018. ADOT&PF's request is for take of seven species of marine mammals by Level B harassment only. Neither ADOT&PF nor NMFS expect mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA IHAs to be issued for this particular activity.

    Description of Activity

    The ADOT&PF plans to make improvements to the Tenakee Springs Ferry Terminal located in Tenakee Springs, Alaska, on Chichigof Island in southeast Alaska (Figure 1-1 of the application). The facility is a multi-function dock and active ferry terminal located in the center of town (see Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 in application). The project's activities that have the potential to take marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile driving, drilling operations for pile installation (down-hole hammer), and vibratory pile removal.

    The purpose of the project is to replace the existing, aging mooring and transfer structures nearing the end of their operational life due to corrosion and wear with modern facilities that provide improved operations for Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferry vessels, as well as freight and fueling operators, servicing the community of Tenakee Springs. Planned improvements include the installation of new shore side facilities and marine structures and the renovation of existing structures. This shall accommodate cargo and baggage handling, vessel mooring, passenger and vehicle access gangways, and re-establish existing electrical and fuel systems. Improvements shall enhance public safety and security.

    In-water project construction activities shall begin no sooner than June 1, 2019. Pile installation and removal is expected to be completed in 93 working days within a 4-month window beginning sometime after June 1, 2019. Pile installation shall be intermittent and staggered depending on weather, construction and mechanical delays, marine mammal shutdowns, and other potential delays and logistical constraints. Given the possibility of schedule delays and other unforeseen circumstances, an IHA is being requested for a full year, from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020.

    A detailed description of the planned activities is provided in the proposed IHA for this action found in the following Federal Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018). Since that time, the only alteration that has been made to the planned activities is the addition of two pile removals with a vibratory hammer. This additional activity has no impact on the take numbers or duration of the project originally in the Federal Register notice (83 FR 12152, March 20, 2018). Therefore, a detailed description of the action is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

    Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2018 (83 FR 12152). During the 30-day public comment period, the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) submitted a letter on April 2, 2018. The Commission recommended that NMFS issue the IHA, subject to inclusion of the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

    Comment 1: The Commission recommends NMFS (1) clarify that action proponents should use linear averaging rather than simple arithmetic means to estimate source levels both as reported in hydroacoustic monitoring reports and for use in applications, (2) continue to require that minimum, mean, median, and maximum values be reported in all hydroacoustic monitoring reports, (3) base proxy source levels on median rather than mean values and (4) continue to require action proponents to use practical spreading unless site-specific transmission loss data are available from the project site.

    Response: At this moment, there are no studies or data that support the use of either the linear mean, arithmetic mean, or median when determining appropriate proxy source levels. However, NMFS is considering the Commission's recommendation at this time and may choose to use the linear mean or median proxy source levels for future actions. In addition, NMFS shall continue to require the reporting of minimum, mean, median, and maximum values in hydroacoustic monitoring reports and the use of practical spreading when site-specific transmission loss data are not available.

    Comment 2: The Commission recommends NMFS promptly revise its draft rounding criteria in order to share them with the Commission in a timely manner

    Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's interest in this matter and looks forward to further discussion.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/). We provided a description of the specified activity in our Federal Register notice announcing the authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). Since that time, it was noted that the section detailing Steller sea lions did not include updated non-pup counts conducted between October and March from 2004 to 2017 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the Tenakee Cannery Point haulout (the closest Steller sea lion haulout to the project area). These counts averaged 140 individuals at the haulout (Jemison 2017, unpubl. data) which were reflected in the Estimated Take Section of our Federal Register (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). All other information within these sections remain the same. Please refer to that document (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018); we provide only a summary table here (Table 1).

    Table 1—Marine Mammals That Occur in the Project Area During the Specified Activity Common name Scientific name MMPA stock ESA/MMPA
  • status;
  • Strategic
  • (Y/N) 1
  • Stock abundance
  • Nbest, (CV, Nmin,
  • most recent
  • abundance survey) 2
  • PBR Annual M/SI 3
    Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family Balaenidae Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Central North Pacific E, D,Y 10,103 (0.3, 7,890, 2006) 83 21 Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Alaska -, N N.A N.A N.A. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family Delphinidae Killer whale Orcinus orca Alaska Resident -, N 2,347 (N.A., 2,347, 2012) 4 23.4 1 West Coast Transient -, N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) 4 2.4 1 Northern Resident -, N 290 (N/A, 290, 2014) 6 1.96 0 Family Phocoenidae Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena Southeast Alaska -, Y 975 (0.10, 896, 2012) 5 5 8.9 5 34 Dall's porpoise Phocoenoides dalli Alaska -, N 83,400 N.A 38 Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) Steller sea lion Eumatopia jubatus Western U.S. 7 E, D, Y 50,983 (N.A., 50,983, 2016) 320 241 Eastern U.S. -,-, N 41,638 (N/A, 41,638, 2015) 2,498 108 Family Phocidae (earless seals) Harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardii Glacier Bay/Icy Strait -, N 7,210 (N.A., 5,647, 2011) 169 104 1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (N/A). 3 These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 4 N is based on counts of individual animals identified from photo-identification catalogs. 5 In the SAR for harbor porpoise (NMFS 2017), NMFS identified population estimates and PBR for porpoises within inland Southeast Alaska waters (these abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0); therefore, they are likely conservative). The calculated PBR is considered unreliable for the entire stock because it is based on estimates from surveys of only a portion (the inside waters of Southeast Alaska) of the range of this stock as currently designated. The Annual M/SI is for the entire stock, including coastal waters. 6 Abundance estimates obtained from Towers et al. 2015. 7 Abundance, PBR, and Annual M/SI derived from draft 2017 SARs (Muto2017b).
    Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    The effect of stressors associated with the specified activities (e.g., pile driving and drilling) has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action areas. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018) included a discussion of the effects of such disturbance on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated here.

    NMFS described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail in our Federal Register notice of proposed authorization (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018). In summary, the project activities are not expected to modify existing marine mammal habitat. Because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.

    Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes for authorization through this IHA, which shall inform both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.

    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Authorized takes are expected to be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to pile driving and drilling. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., shutdowns—discussed in detail below in Mitigation section), Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.

    Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals shall be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that shall be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the take estimate.

    Acoustic Thresholds

    NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals shall be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).

    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 micro pascal (μPa) root mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns and impact pile driving) sources.

    ADOT&PF's activity includes the use of continuous (vibratory pile driving and drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources, and therefore the 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) thresholds are applicable.

    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) because of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).

    These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 2 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm.

    Table 2—Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift Hearing group PTS onset acoustic thresholds 1
  • (received level)
  • Impulsive Non-impulsive
    Low-frequency cetaceans Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. Mid-frequency cetaceans Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. High-frequency cetaceans Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Phocid Pinnipeds (underwater) Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. Otariid Pinnipeds (underwater) Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 1 NMFS 2016.

    Although ADOT&PF's construction activity includes the use of impulsive (impact pile driving) and non-impulsive (vibratory pile driving and drilling) sources, the shutdown zones set by the applicant are large enough to ensure Level A harassment will be prevented. The Level A harassment zones for the project are illustrated in Table 4. The highest Level A harassment zones shown (176 meters for high-frequency cetaceans and 148 meters for low-frequency cetaceans) are less than the total distance of the largest shutdown zone (200 meters for high- and low-frequency cetaceans). To assure the largest shutdown zone can be fully monitored, protected species observers (PSOs) shall be positioned in the possible best vantage points during all piling/drilling activities to guarantee a shutdown if a high- and/or low-frequency cetacean approaches or enters the 200-meter shutdown zone. These measures are described in full detail below in the Mitigation and Monitoring Sections.

    Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that feeds into identifying the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds.

    The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project, i.e., impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and vibratory pile removal. Vibratory hammers produce constant sound when operating, and produce vibrations that liquefy the sediment surrounding the pile, allowing it to penetrate to the required seating depth. An impact hammer shall then generally be used to place the pile at its intended depth. The actual durations of each installation method vary depending on the type and size of the pile. An impact hammer is a steel device that works like a piston, producing a series of independent strikes to drive the pile. Impact hammering typically generates the loudest noise associated with pile installation. Factors that potentially minimize the potential impacts of pile installation associated with the project include:

    • The relatively shallow waters in the project area (Taylor et al., 2008);

    • Land forms around Tenakee Springs that shall block the noise from spreading; and

    • Vessel traffic and other commercial and industrial activities in the project area that contribute to elevated background noise levels.

    In order to calculate distances to the Level A and Level B sound thresholds for piles of various sizes being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations (see Table 3). Note that piles of differing sizes have different sound source levels.

    Empirical data from recent ADOT&PF sound source verification (SSV) studies at Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Auke Bay, Alaska were used to estimate sound source levels (SSLs) for vibratory, impact, and drilling installations of 30-inch steel pipe piles (MacGillivray et al., 2016, Warner and Austin 2016b, Denes et al., 2016a, respectively). These Alaskan construction sites were generally assumed to best represent the environmental conditions found in Tenakee and represent the nearest available source level data for 30-inch steel piles. Similarities among the sites include thin layers of soft sediments overlying a bedrock layer and comparable bedrock depths. However, the use of data from Alaska sites was not appropriate in all instances. Details are described below.

    For vibratory driving of 24-inch steel piles, data from two Navy project locations in the state of Washington were reviewed. These include data from proxy sound source values at Navy installations in Puget Sound (Navy, 2015) and along the waterfront at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK), Bangor (Navy 2012). After assessing these two sources, ADOT&PF selected an average source level of 161 dB rms, which NMFS concurs with as an appropriate sound source. In addition, for a fourth project at NBK, Bangor, construction crews drove 16-inch hollow steel piles with measured levels similar to those for the 24-inch piles. Therefore, NMFS elects to use 161 dB rms as a source level for vibratory driving of 18-inch and 16-inch steel piles.

    For vibratory driving of 14-inch steel and timber piles and 12.75-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF suggested a source level of 155 dB rms, which NMFS also concurs with. This source level was derived from summary data pertaining to vibratory driving of 18-inch steel piles in Kake, Alaska (MacGillivray 2015).

    In their application, ADOT&PF derived source levels for impact driving of 30-inch steel piles by averaging the individual mean values associated with impact driving of the same size and type from Ketchikan (Warner and Austin 2016a). Mean values from Ketchikan were the most conservative dataset for 30-inch impact pile driving in Southeast Alaska. The average mean value from this dataset was 194.7 dB rms and 180.8 dB sound exposure level (SEL).

    For 24-inch impact pile driving, NMFS used data from a Navy (2015) study of proxy sound source values for use at Puget Sound military installations. The Navy study recommended a value of 193 dB rms and 181 dB SEL, which was derived from data generated by impact driving of 24-inch steel piles at the Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal Preservation project and the Friday Harbor Restoration Ferry Terminal project. NMFS found this estimated source level to be appropriate.

    For impact driving of 20-, 18-, and 14-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used source levels of 186.6 dB, 158 dB, and 158 dB respectively. These source levels were derived from Caltrans SSV studies at the Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant (20-inch) and Caltrans SSV studies at Prichard Lake Pumping Plant in Sacramento, CA (18- and 14-inch) (Caltrans 2015). In regards to the drilling activities, a source level of 165 dB for all pile types originated from ADOT&PF SSV studies for piling operations in Kodiak, Alaska (Warner and Austin 2016b).

    Table 3—Estimates of Mean Underwater Sound Levels Generated During Vibratory and Impact Pile Installation, Drilling, and Vibratory Pile Removal Method and pile type Vibratory hammer Installation,
  • removal, or
  • proofing
  • Sound level at 10 meters dB rms Literature source
    30-inch steel piles Install 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 2016a & Denes et al. 2016. 24-inch steel piles Install 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 20-inch steel piles Install 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 18-inch steel piles Remove, Install 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 16-inch steel piles Remove 161.0 Navy 2012, 2015. 14-inch steel piles Remove 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015. 14-inch timber piles Remove, Install 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015. 12.75-inch steel piles Remove 155.0 MacGillivray et al. 2015.
    Drilling dB rms 30-inch steel piles Install 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 2016b. 24-inch steel piles Install 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 2016b. 20-inch steel piles Install 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 2016b. 18-inch steel piles Install 165.0 Derived from Warner and Austin 2016b. Impact hammer dB rms dB SEL dB peak 30-inch steel piles Proofing 194.7 180.8 208.6 Warner and Austin 2016a. 24-inch steel piles Proofing 193.0 181.0 210.0 Navy 2015 (from 82 FR 31400). 20-inch steel piles Proofing 186.5 175.5 207.0 Caltrans 2015. 18-inch steel piles Proofing 158.0 174.0 Caltrans 2015. 14-inch timber piles Install 158.0 174.0 Caltrans 2015.

    The formula below is used to calculate underwater sound propagation. Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, and bottom composition and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

    TL = B * log 10 (R 1 /R 2 )

    1 The distance of the modeled SPL from the driven pile.

    2 The distance from the driven pile of the initial measurement.

    Where: TL = transmission loss in dB B = transmission loss coefficient; for practical spreading equals 15

    NMFS typically recommends a default practical spreading loss of 15 dB per tenfold increase in distance. ADOT&PF analyzed the available underwater acoustic data utilizing this metric.

    When NMFS' Technical Guidance (2016) was published, in recognition of the fact that ensonified area/volume could be more technically challenging to predict because of the duration component in the new thresholds, NMFS developed a User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used for these tools, we anticipate that isopleths produced are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which shall result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools, and shall qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For stationary sources such as pile driving and drilling, NMFS' User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance the whole duration of the activity, it shall not incur PTS. Inputs used in the User Spreadsheet and the resulting isopleths are reported in Tables 3 and 4.

    Table 4—Calculated Distances to Level A and Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Installation and Removal Type of pile Activity Piles
  • installed
  • or removed
  • per day
  • Level A harassment zone
  • (meters) 1
  • Cetaceans LF MF HF Pinnipeds PW OW Level B
  • harassment zone
  • (meters), cetaceans and pinnipeds 2
  • Vibratory (120 dB) 30-inch steel Install 4 3 11 1 16 7 1 10,000 24-inch steel, 20-inch steel, 18-inch steel Install 4 3 6 1 9 4 1 5,412 18-inch steel, 16-inch steel Remove 4 10 13 2 19 8 1 5,412 14-inch steel, 14-inch timber, 12.75-inch steel Remove 5 10 5 1 8 3 1 2,154 Drilling (120 dB) 30-inch steel, 20-inch steel Install 6 3 55 5 81 34 3 10,000 24-inch steel, 18-inch steel Install 7 3 42 4 62 26 2 10,000 Impact (160 dB)3 30-inch steel Proofing 1 70 3 82 37 3 2,057 2 110 4 131 59 5 3 144 6 171 77 6 24-inch steel Proofing 1 71 3 85 38 3 1,585 2 113 4 135 61 5 3 148 6 176 79 6 20-inch steel Proofing 3 64 3 76 34 3 584 18-inch steel Proofing 3 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 7 14-inch timber Install 10 1 <1 2 <1 <1 7 1 Level A Isopleths Calculated Using NMFS' 2016 Acoustic User Spreadsheet. Source level set at a distance of 10 Meters, a weighting factor adjustment of 2 kHz for impulse sources and 2.5 kHz for continuous sources, and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR. 2 Level B Isopleths Calculated using Practical Spreading Loss Model. Source level set at a distance of 10 meters and and a propagation loss value of 15 LogR. 3 30 Strikes per pile. 4 45 minute activity duration. 5 2.5 hour activity duration. 6 9 hour activity duration. 7 6 hour activity duration.

    Pulse duration from the SSV studies described above are unknown. However, all necessary parameters were available for the SELcum (cumulative Single Strike Equivalent) method for calculating isopleths for 30-inch, 24-inch, and 20-inch impact piles. Therefore, this method was selected for those piles. To account for potential variations in daily productivity during impact installation, isopleths were calculated for different numbers of piles that shall be installed each day (see Table 4). Should the contractor expect to install fewer piles in a day than the maximum anticipated, a smaller Level A shutdown zone shall be employed to monitor take.

    To derive Level A harassment isopleths associated with impact driving 30-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF utilized a single strike SEL of 180.8 dB and assumed 30 strikes per pile for 1 to 3 piles per day. For 24-inch and 20-inch steel piles, ADOT&PF used a single strike SEL of 181 dB SEL and 175.5 SEL respectively, also assuming 30 strikes at a rate of 1 to 3 piles per day. To calculate Level A harassment isopleths associated with impact piling 18-inch and 14-inch steel/timber piles, a source level (rms sound pressure level (SPL)) of 158 dB was used with a pulse duration of .05 seconds.

    To calculate Level A harassment for vibratory driving of 30-inch piles, ADOT&PF utilized a source level (rms SPL) of 165 dB and assumed 45 minutes of driving per day. For installing 24, 20, and 18-inch piles, ADOT&PF used a source level of 161 dB and assumed up to 45 minutes of driving per day. For removal of 18 and 16-inch piles, ADOT&PF assumed use of 18-inch piles and used the same source level of 161 dB for up to 45 minutes. Level A harassment for the installation/removal of piles 14-inches and under in diameter used a source level of 155 dB rms and assumed 2.5 hours of driving/removal a day. In regards to Level A for drilling, a source level of 165 dB rms was used for all pile types with varying levels of activity for each pile type (see Tables 1 & 2 of the FR Notice (83 FR 12152; March 20, 2018) for information on drilling duration and max number of piles drilled each day). Results for all Level A isopleths are shown in Table 4. Isopleths for Level B harassment associated with impact (160 dB) and vibratory harassment (120 dB) were also calculated and are included in Table 4.

    It is important to note that the actual area ensonified by pile driving activities is constrained by local topography relative to the total threshold radius (particularly for the Level B ensonified zones). The actual ensonified area was determined using a straight line-of-sight projection from the anticipated pile driving locations. Overall, Level A harassment zones for impact installation are relatively small because of the few strikes required to proof the piles. The maximum aquatic areas ensonified within the Level A harassment isopleths do not exceed 0.1 square kilometer (km2) (see Figures 6-1 and Figure 6-2 in application). The corresponding areas of the Level B ensonified zones for impact driving and vibratory installation/removal are shown in Table 5 below.

    Table 5—Calculated Areas Ensonified Within Level B Harassment Isopleths During Pile Installation and Removal Type of pile Activity Level B harassment zone (km2),
  • cetaceans and pinnipeds
  • Vibratory (120 dB) 30-inch steel Install 78.9 24-, 20-, 18-, and 16-inch steel Install 45.3 14-, 12.75-inch steel, and 14-inch timber Remove 7.3 Drilling (120 dB) 30-, 24-, 20-, and 18-inch steel Install 78.9 Impact (160 dB) 30-inch steel Proofing 6.7 24-inch steel Proofing 4.0 20-inch steel Proofing 0.6 18-inch steel Proofing <0.1 14-inch timber Install <0.1
    Marine Mammal Occurrence and Final Take Estimates

    In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that shall inform the take calculations. Potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold were estimated using local marine mammal density datasets where available and local observational data. As previously stated, only Level B take shall be considered for this action as Level A take shall be avoided via mitigation (i.e., shutdown). Each shutdown zone fully covers the extent of each corresponding Level A zone for all piling and drilling activities (See Tables 4 and 6). Level B take is calculated differently for some species based on differences in density, year-round habitat use, and other contextual factors. See below for specific methodologies by species.

    Steller Sea Lions

    Steller sea lion abundance in the project area is highly seasonal in nature with sea lions being most active between October and March (Figure 4-2). Level B exposure estimates are conservatively based on the average winter (October to March) abundance of 140 sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery haulout, which is 8.9 km away from the project site (Jemison, 2017, unpublished data). However, it is unlikely that the entire Steller sea lion population from the Tenakee Cannery haulout shall forage to the west near the Tenakee Springs ferry terminal. Additionally, Steller sea lions do not generally forage every day, but tend to forage every 1-2 days and return to haulouts to rest between foraging trips (Merrick and Loughlin 1997; Rehburg et al., 2009). Overall, this information indicates that only half of the Steller sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery haulout (i.e., average of 140 during winter) is likely to approach the project site on any given day and be exposed to sound levels that constitute behavioral harassment. As a result, an estimated 70 individuals is a conservative estimate of the number of Steller sea lions likely to forage in the underwater behavioral harassment zone on a given day. Therefore: 70 Steller sea lions per day * 93 days of potential exposure = 6,510 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    To assign take to the eastern distinct population segment (eDPS) and western DPS (wDPS) stocks of Steller sea lions, data from researchers at NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center were used. Researchers at NMFS' Alaska Fisheries Science Center state that roughly 17.8 percent of Steller sea lions at the Tenakee Cannery Point haulout are members of the wDPS whereas 82.2 percent are from the eDPS (L. Fritz, pers. comm; L. Fritz, unpublished data). Therefore, it is estimated that only 1,159 takes (17.8 percent of 6,510) have the potential to occur for wDPS Steller sea lions and 5,351 (82.2 percent of 6,510) takes have the potential to occur for eDPS Steller sea lions. In addition, since there is only an average of 140 Steller sea lions located at the Tenakee Cannery haulout, it is predicted that only 115 (82.2 percent of 140) individuals from the eDPS and 25 (17.8 percent of 140) individuals from the wDPS have the potential to be harassed.

    Harbor Seals

    Harbor seals are non-migratory; therefore, the exposure estimates are not dependent on season. We anticipate Level B harbor seal take to be relatively high, given the presence of three established haulouts within the largest (10 km) Level B harassment zone of the project site. The best available abundance estimate for Tenakee Inlet is 259 individual harbor seals (London, J., pers. comm.).

    The number of harbor seals that could potentially be exposed to elevated sound levels for the project was estimated by calculating density * area * number of days of activity. The total density of harbor seals in Tenakee inlet is approximately 1.11 animals per km2 (259 harbor seals/233.35 km2 of available habitat in Tenakee Inlet). However, the action area is equivalent to 78.9 km2. Therefore: 1.11 harbor seals per km2 * 78.9 km2 * 93 days of potential exposure = 8,144 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Harbor Porpoises

    Harbor porpoises are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Harbor porpoise surveys conducted in southeast Alaska during the summers of 1991-1993, 2006, 2007, and 2010-2012 included Chatham Strait (near the action area). The average density estimate for all survey years in Chatham Strait was 0.013 harbor porpoise per square km (Dahlheim et al., 2015). Surveys in 1997, 1998, and 1999 reported an average harbor porpoise density of .033 per square km in Southeast Alaska (Hobbs and Waite 2010). Based density estimates from Hobbs and Waite (2010), a more conservative density estimate, we estimate that approximately 2.6 (.033 * 78.9) harbor porpoises could occur daily within the 78.9 square km Level B harassment zone. Therefore: 2.6 harbor porpoises per day * 93 days of potential exposure = 242 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Dall's Porpoises

    Dall's porpoise are non-migratory; therefore, our exposure estimates are not dependent on season. Based on anecdotal evidence citing rare occurrences of the species in the action area, we anticipate approximately one observation of a Dall's porpoise pod in the Level B harassment zone each week during construction (Lewis, S., pers. comm.). Based on an average pod size of 3.7 (Wade et al., 2003), we estimate 49 Dall's porpoise could be exposed to Level B harassment noise during the 93 day construction period (i.e., 3.7 individuals per week * 13.2 weeks of potential exposure = 48.84 (rounded up to 49) total potential exposures). Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Killer Whales

    Local marine mammal experts indicate that approximately one killer whale pod is observed in Tenakee Inlet each month, year-round (Lewis, S., pers. comm.). It is assumed that all three killer whale stocks are equally likely to occur in the area because no data exist on relative abundance of the three stocks in Tenakee Inlet. The exposure estimate is conservatively based on a resident pod size, which has been quantified and is known to be a larger than other stocks. Resident killer whales occur in a mean group size of 19.3 during the fall in southeast Alaska (Dahlheim et al., 2009). Therefore, we assume that a total of approximately 60 killer whales could be exposed to Level B harassment over the course of the project (i.e., (19.3 individuals per pod * 1 pods per month) * 3.1 months = 59.83 (rounded up to 60)). Since there are no data that exist for killer whale stocks in Tenakee Inlet, 60 Level B takes were applied to each stock. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Humpback Whales

    Humpback whales are present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Local experts indicate that as many as 12 humpback whales are present on some days from spring through fall, with lower numbers during the winter (S. Lewis and M. Dahlheim, pers. comm.). We conservatively estimate that half of those, or six individuals on average, could be exposed to Level B harassment during each day of pile installation and removal, therefore: 6 humpback whales per day * 93 days of exposure = 558 potential exposures. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Minke Whales

    Minke whales may be present in Tenakee Inlet year-round. Their abundance throughout southeast Alaska is very low, and anecdotal reports have not included minke whales near the project area. However, minke whales are distributed throughout a wide variety of habitats and could occur near the project area. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that one minke whale could be exposed to Level B harassment each month during construction or a total of three minke whales during the 93-day construction period. Each of these exposures will result in Level B take only, as Level A take is neither requested nor authorized due to shutdown measures.

    Mitigation Measures

    In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).

    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors:

    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure shall be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;

    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations.

    In addition to the measures described later in this section, ADOT&PF shall employ the following standard mitigation measures:

    • Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures;

    • For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (e.g., standard barges, tug boats), if a marine mammal comes within 10 m, operations shall cease and vessels shall reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions. This type of work could include the following activities: (1) Movement of the barge to the pile location; or (2) positioning of the pile on the substrate via a crane (i.e., stabbing the pile);

    • Work may only occur during daylight hours, when visual monitoring of marine mammals can be conducted;

    • For those marine mammals for which Level B take has not been requested, in-water pile installation/removal and drilling shall shut down immediately when the animals are sighted;

    • If Level B take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile installation shall be stopped as these species approach the Level B zone to avoid additional take of them.

    The following measures shall apply to ADOT&PFs mitigation requirements:

    Establishment of Shutdown Zone for Level A—For all pile driving/removal and drilling activities, ADOT&PF shall establish a shutdown zone. The purpose of a shutdown zone is generally to define an area within which shutdown of activity shall occur upon sighting of a marine mammal (or in anticipation of an animal entering the defined area). For all in-water heavy machinery activities, a 10 meter shutdown zone will be required. In addition, during impact installation of 24-inch and 30-inch steel piles at a frequency of 2 or 3 piles per day, PSOs shall implement a 200-meter shutdown zone for Dall's porpoises, minke whales, and humpback whales (low- and high-frequency cetaceans). The placement of PSOs during all pile driving and drilling activities (described in detail in the Monitoring and Reporting Section) shall ensure that each shutdown zone is visible during pile driving and drilling activities. All shutdown zones, with their corresponding sound source type are presented in Table 6 below.

    Table 6 Shutdown Zones for Various Pile Driving/Drilling Activities for Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Sound source type Shutdown zone radii
  • (meters)
  • Low-frequency cetaceans Mid-frequency cetaceans High-
  • frequency cetaceans
  • Phocid pinnipeds Otariid pinnipeds
    1—Vibratory pile driving/removal, drilling, and impact pile driving (all impact pilling activities not expressed in the column directly below) 100 100 100 50 50 Impact Installation of 24-inch and 30-inch steel piles at a frequency of two or three piles per day 200 100 200 100 100 3—In Water Heavy Machinery Activities (Non pile driving and drilling activities) 10 10 10 10 10

    Establishment of Monitoring Zones for Level B—ADOT&PF shall establish Level B disturbance zones or zones of influence (ZOI) which are areas where SPLs are equal to or exceed the 160 dB rms threshold for impact driving and the 120 dB rms threshold during vibratory driving and drilling. Monitoring zones provide utility for observing by establishing monitoring protocols for areas adjacent to the shutdown zones. Monitoring zones enable observers to be aware of and communicate the presence of marine mammals in the project area outside the shutdown zone and thus prepare for a potential cease of activity should the animal enter the shutdown zone. The Level B zones are depicted in Table 4. As shown, the largest Level B zone is equal to 78.9 km2, making it impossible for the PSOs to view the entire harassment area. Due to this, Level B exposures shall be recorded and extrapolated based upon the number of observed take and the percentage of the Level B zone that was not visible.

    Soft Start—The use of a soft-start procedure are believed to provide additional protection to marine mammals by providing warning and/or giving marine mammals a chance to leave the area prior to the hammer operating at full capacity. For impact pile driving, contractors shall be required to provide an initial set of strikes from the hammer at 40 percent energy, each strike followed by no less than a 30-second waiting period. This procedure shall be conducted a total of three times before impact pile driving begins. Soft Start is not required during vibratory pile driving and removal activities.

    Pre-Activity Monitoring—Prior to the start of daily in-water construction activity, or whenever a break in pile driving of 30 minutes or longer occurs, the observer shall observe the shutdown and monitoring zones for a period of 30 minutes. The shutdown zone shall be cleared when a marine mammal has not been observed within the zone for that 30-minute period. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone, a soft-start cannot proceed until the animal has left the zone or has not been observed for 30 minutes (for cetaceans) and 15 minutes (for pinnipeds). If the Level B harassment zone has been observed for 30 minutes and non-permitted species are not present within the zone, soft start procedures can commence and work can continue even if visibility becomes impaired within the Level B zone. When a marine mammal permitted for Level B take is present in the Level B harassment zone, piling activities may begin and Level B take shall be recorded. As stated above, if the entire Level B zone is not visible at the start of construction, piling or drilling activities can begin. If work ceases for more than 30 minutes, the pre-activity monitoring of both the Level B and shutdown zone shall commence.

    Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that shall result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both for compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.

    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:

    • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density);

    • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);

    • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;

    • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;

    • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat); and

    • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

    Visual Monitoring

    Monitoring shall be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving and removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than thirty minutes.

    PSOs shall be land-based observers. A primary PSO shall be placed at the terminal where pile driving shall occur. A second observer shall range the uplands on foot or by ATV via Tenakee Ave., and go from Grave Point east of the harbor up and west of the project site to get a full view of the Level A zone and as much of the Level B zone as possible. PSOs shall scan the waters using binoculars, and/or spotting scopes, and shall use a handheld GPS or range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the project site. All PSOs shall be trained in marine mammal identification and behaviors and are required to have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring. In addition, monitoring shall be conducted by qualified observers, who shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Qualified observers are trained and/or experienced professionals, with the following minimum qualifications:

    • Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target.

    • Independent observers (i.e., not construction personnel).

    • Observers must have their CVs/resumes submitted to and approved by NMFS

    • Advanced education in biological science or related field (i.e., undergraduate degree or

    higher).Observers may substitute education or training for experience.

    • Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience).

    • At least one observer must have prior experience working as an observer.

    • Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors.

    • Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations.

    • Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior.

    • Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.

    A draft marine mammal monitoring report shall be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities. It shall include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:

    • Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;

    • Construction activities occurring during each observation period;

    • Weather parameters (e.g., percent cover, visibility);

    • Water conditions (e.g., sea state, tide state);

    • Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;

    • Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;

    • Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;

    • Locations of all marine mammal observations; and

    • Other human activity in the area.

    If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report shall constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.

    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA, such as an injury, serious injury or mortality, ADOT&PF shall immediately cease the specified activities and report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report shall include the following information:

    • Description of the incident;

    • Environmental conditions (e.g., Beaufort sea state, visibility);

    • Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;

    • Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;

    • Fate of the animal(s); and

    • Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).

    Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ADOT&PF shall not be able to resume their activities until notified by NMFS via letter, email, or telephone.

    In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as described in the next paragraph), ADOT&PF shall immediately report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator. The report shall include the same information identified in the paragraph above. Activities shall be able to continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS shall work with ADOT&PF to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.

    In the event that ADOT&PF discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), ADOT&PF shall report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, and the NMFS Alaska Stranding Hotline and/or by email to the Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours of the discovery. ADOT&PF shall provide photographs, video footage (if available), or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS and the Marine Mammal Stranding Network.

    Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

    As stated in the mitigation section, shutdown zones equal to or exceeding Level A isopleths shown in Table 4 shall be implemented, and in this case, Level A take is not anticipated nor authorized. Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving and removal at the ferry terminal, if any, are expected to be mild and temporary. Marine mammals within the Level B harassment zone may not show any visual cues they are disturbed by activities (as noted during modification to the Kodiak Ferry Dock) or could become alert, avoid the area, leave the area, or display other mild responses that are not observable such as changes in vocalization patterns. Given the short duration of noise-generating activities per day and that pile driving, removal, and drilling shall occur for 93 days, any harassment shall be temporary. In addition, the project was designed with relatively small-diameter piles, which shall avoid the elevated noise impacts associated with larger piles. In addition, there are no known biologically important areas near the project zone that shall be moderately or significantly impacted by the construction activities. The region of Tenakee Inlet where the project shall take place is located in a developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. Although there is a harbor seal haulout approximately one km south of the project site, it shall not be located within the project's Level B zone.

    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:

    • No mortality is anticipated or authorized.

    • There are no known biologically important areas within the project area.

    • ADOT&PF shall implement mitigation measures such as vibratory driving piles to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, and shut downs.

    • Monitoring reports from similar work in Alaska have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the activity shall have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.

    Overall, ADOT&PF proposes 15,566 total Level B takes of these marine mammals. Table 7 below shows take as a percent of population for each of the species listed above.

    Table 7—Summary of the Estimated Numbers of Marine Mammals Potentially Exposed to Level B Harassment Sound Levels Species DPS/Stock Number of
  • exposures to Level B
  • harassment total and by stock
  • Number of
  • individuals
  • potentially
  • exposed to
  • Level B
  • harassment
  • Stock
  • abundance
  • Percent of population 1
    Steller sea lion Eastern DPS 5,351 115 41,638 <0.3 Western DPS 1,159 25 53,303 <0.1 Harbor seal Glacier Bay/Icy Strait 8,144 259 7,210 3.6 Harbor porpoise Southeast Alaska 242 242 975 24.8 Dall's porpoise Alaska 49 49 83,400 <0.1 Killer whale West Coast transient 60 60 243 24.7 Alaska resident 60 60 2,347 2.6 Northern Resident 60 60 290 20.7 Humpback whale Mexico DPS/Central North Pacific 558 558 10,103 5.5 Minke whale Alaska 3 3 N/A N/A Total 15,686 1,434 N/A N/A 1 The percent of population is based on the proportion of take that is expected to occur from each stock based on abundance (see Table 1). Killer whale stocks are assumed to be equally likely to occur. N/A: Not Applicable or no stock population assessment is available.

    Table 7 presents the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels causing Level B harassment for the work at the Tenakee Springs Ferry Terminal. Our analysis shows that less than 25 percent of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. Therefore, the numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species shall be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For harbor porpoise, the abundance estimates used in the percentage of population were taken from inland Southeast Alaska waters. These abundance estimates have not been corrected for g(0) and are likely conservative, therefore it is expected for the percentage of population that shall be taken to be overestimated. In addition, high percentage totals for northern resident (20.7 percent) and western transient (24.7 percent) killer whales were based on the possibility that all 60 takes for killer whales shall occur for each stock, which is a highly unlikely scenario.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals shall be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

    Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks shall not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. The project is not known to occur in an important subsistence hunting area. It is a developed area with regular marine vessel traffic. However, ADOT&PF plans to provide advanced public notice of construction activities to reduce construction impacts on local residents, ferry travelers, adjacent businesses, and other users of the Tenakee Springs ferry terminal and nearby areas. This shall include notification to local Alaska Native tribes that may have members who hunt marine mammals for subsistence. Of the marine mammals considered in this IHA application, only harbor seals are known to be used for subsistence in the project area. If any tribes express concerns regarding project impacts to subsistence hunting of marine mammals, further communication between shall take place, including provision of any project information, and clarification of any mitigation and minimization measures that may reduce potential impacts to marine mammals.

    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS has determined that there shall not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from ADOT&PF's activities.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with NMFS' Alaska Regional Office, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

    NMFS Alaska Region issued a Biological Opinion to NMFS Office of Protected Resources which concluded the city dock and improvement project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of WDPS Steller sea lions or Mexico DPS humpback whales or adversely modify critical habitat because none exists within the action area.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental harassment authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

    Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to ADOT&PF for conducting the described construction activities related to city dock and ferry terminal improvements from June 1, 2019 through May 31, 2020 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Elaine T. Saiz, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13591 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Intent To Find That Georgia Has Satisfied All Conditions of Approval Placed on Its Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent to find that Georgia has satisfied all conditions of approval on its coastal nonpoint pollution control program.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (the federal agencies) invite public comment on the agencies' proposed finding that Georgia has satisfied all conditions on the 2002 approval of the State's coastal nonpoint pollution control program (coastal nonpoint program). The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) directs states and territories with coastal zone management programs previously approved under Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint programs, which must be submitted to the federal agencies for approval. Prior to making such a finding, NOAA and EPA invite public input on the federal agencies' reasoning for this proposed finding.

    DATES:

    Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the proposed findings document should do so by July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments can be made by email to: [email protected], or in writing to Joelle Gore, Chief, Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533-0813, to the ATTN: Georgia Coastal Nonpoint Program. All comments received will be posted without change to https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/, including any personal information provided. The federal agencies may publish any comment received. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The federal agencies 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of the proposed Findings Document may be found on NOAA's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program website at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/. Additional background information on the state's program may be obtained upon request from: Allison Castellan, Stewardship Division (N/OCM6), Office for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, phone (240) 533-0799, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), 16 U.S.C. 1455b(a), requires that each state (or territory) with a coastal zone management program previously approved under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act must prepare and submit to the federal agencies a coastal nonpoint pollution control program for approval. Georgia originally submitted its program to the federal agencies for approval in December 1999. The federal agencies provided public notice of and invited public comment on their proposal to approve, with conditions, the Georgia program (66 FR 49643). The federal agencies approved the program by letter dated June 4, 2002, subject to the conditions specified in the letter (67 FR 38471). The federal agencies propose to find, and invite public comment on the proposed findings, that Georgia has now fully satisfied all conditions of the earlier approval of its coastal nonpoint program.

    Over time, Georgia has made changes to its program in order to satisfy the identified conditions. As explained in the proposed findings document, the federal agencies have determined that Georgia has fully met all conditions originally placed on its program. The proposed findings document describes how the State program has satisfied the conditions.

    The proposed findings document for Georgia's program as well as information on the Coastal Nonpoint Program in general is available for download on the NOAA website at https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/.

    Dated: June 18, 2018. W. Russell Callender, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. David P. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13613 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Market Risk Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announces that on July 12, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., the Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC) will hold a public meeting in the Conference Center at the CFTC's Washington, DC, headquarters. At this meeting, the MRAC will discuss: The Committee's priorities and agenda, current initiatives to reform the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), including the development and adoption of alternative interest rate benchmarks, and the effect of such reform on the derivatives markets.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on July 12, 2018, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Members of the public who wish to submit written statements in connection with the meeting should submit them by July 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place in the Conference Center at the CFTC's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. You may submit public comments, identified by “Market Risk Advisory Committee,” by any of the following methods:

    CFTC website: https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Comments Online process on the website.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Any statements submitted in connection with the committee meeting will be made available to the public, including publication on the CFTC website, http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alicia L. Lewis, MRAC Designated Federal Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581; (202) 418-5862.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public may also listen to the meeting by telephone by calling a domestic toll-free telephone or international toll or toll-free number to connect to a live, listen-only audio feed. Call-in participants should be prepared to provide their first name, last name, and affiliation.

    Domestic Toll Free: 1-877-951-7311.

    International Toll and Toll Free: Will be posted on the CFTC's website, http://www.cftc.gov, on the page for the meeting, under Related Links.

    Pass Code/Pin Code: 3154908.

    The meeting agenda may change to accommodate other MRAC priorities. For agenda updates, please visit the MRAC committee site at: http://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCCommittees/MarketRiskAdvisoryCommittee/mrac_meetings.

    After the meeting, a transcript of the meeting will be published through a link on the CFTC's website, http://www.cftc.gov. All written submissions provided to the CFTC in any form will also be published on the CFTC's website. Persons requiring special accommodations to attend the meeting because of a disability should notify the contact person above.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. app. 2, sec. 10(a)(2).

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13612 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Notice Inviting Preliminary Public Input on Transformation and Sustainability Plan; Correction AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Request for preliminary public input; Notification of listening sessions; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service published a Notice in the Federal Register of June 19, 2018, concerning listening sessions to solicit comments regarding its Transformation and Sustainability Plan. The document contained an incorrect date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Neill Minish, Special Initiatives Advisor, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20525. Phone: 202-606-6664. Email: [email protected]

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 19, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-13087, on page 28415, in the first column, correct the second listening session to read as follows:

    2. June 26, 2018, New Orleans, LA.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Brian Finch, Director of Business Transformation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13588 Filed 6-21-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery will take place. The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee, please visit: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/ACANC-Meetings

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on Thursday, July 26, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Arlington National Cemetery Welcome Center, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Timothy Keating; Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington VA 22211, or by email at [email protected], or by phone at 1-877-907-8585. Website: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Advisory-Committee-on-Arlington-National-Cemetery/Charter. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery is an independent Federal advisory committee chartered to provide the Secretary of the Army independent advice and recommendations on Arlington National Cemetery, including, but not limited to, cemetery administration, the erection of memorials at the cemetery, and master planning for the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army may act on the Committee's advice and recommendations.

    Agenda: The Committee will convene to deliberate various courses of action and possible recommendations for the Secretary of the Army to consider to keep Arlington National Cemetery open well in to the future as outlined in Public Law 114-158.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Arlington National Cemetery conference room is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Timothy Keating, the Committee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Timothy Keating, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Committee Chairperson, and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140(d), the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the Committee's Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting may be available for public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Designated Federal Official.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of the Army.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13667 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Board on Coastal Engineering Research; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Board on Coastal Engineering Research will take place.

    DATES:

    The Board on Coastal Engineering Research will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 7, 2018 and reconvene from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 8, 2018. The Executive Session of the Board will convene from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 9, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All sessions will be held at the Marriott Providence Downtown Hotel Marquis Ballroom, 1 Orms St. Providence, RI 02904. All sessions, including the Executive Session are open to the public. For more information about the Board, please visit https://chl.erdc.dren.mil/usace-cerb/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    COL Bryan S. Green, US Army, (601) 634-2513 (Voice), (601) 634-2818 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is U.S. Army Engineer, Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199. Website: https://chl.erdc.dren.mil/usace-cerb/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. The Board on Coastal Engineering Research provides broad policy guidance and reviews plans for the conduct of research and the development of research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal engineering field and the objectives of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The theme of the meeting is “Coupling Coastal Engineering Solutions with Social & Ecological Predications.” The purpose of the meeting is to identify Corps coastal research priorities related to the physical, biological, and chemical processes impacting human and ecosystem health as identified in the Future of Nearshore Processes Research paper.

    Agenda: On Tuesday morning, August 7, 2018, panel presentations will address Challenges and Successes Managing Northeast Regional Coastal Systems. Presentations will include: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Social & Ecological Predictions; Important Characteristics of the Northeast Region; Northeast Regional Ocean Plan: Ocean & Coastal Ecosystem Health; and Coastal Resources Management Council's New Scenario based Permitting for Coastal Structures. The day will end with a presentation on; The Natures Conservancy (TNC) Applications of Living Shorelines and Natural and Nature-Based Features in the Northeast for Coastal Resilience.

    On Wednesday morning, August 8, 2018, the Board will reconvene to discuss Coastal Research Supporting Social & Ecological Needs. Presentations will include: Research on Long-Term Natural Geomorphologic Evolution of Barrier Islands & Estuaries in Absence of Humans; Ecological Metrics; Predicting the Transport, Transformation and Fate of Sediment and Particle-Bound Nutrients and Contaminates; Research on Coastal Water Quality Addressing the Sources, Transformation, Transport, and Ecology of Biocolloid; Reducing Risk and Improving Resiliency to the Impacts of Climate Variability; Northeast Sediment Sources and Needs; and Conveyance of Risk from Storms and Social Implications of Impacts. The Wednesday afternoon session continues with the State of Knowledge and Research Direction's panel. Presentations include: Triggers in Rising Seas and Community Flooding; Research Roadmap on Natural and Nature-Based Features; Ecological Modeling and Prediction Uncertainty; Climate Change and Adaptation Planning for Ports; and Urban Flood Prediction: Current Capabilities and Challenges. The Board will meet in Executive Session to discuss ongoing initiatives and future actions on Thursday morning, August 9, 2018.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public. Because seating capacity is limited, advance registration is required. For registration requirements please see below.

    Oral participation by the public is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 8, 2018. The Marriott Providence Downtown Hotel is fully handicap accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, please contact COL Bryan S. Green, the Board's DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Registration: It is encouraged for individuals who wish to attend the meeting of the Board to register with the DFO by email, the preferred method of contact, no later than July 23, 2018, using the electronic mail contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, and daytime phone number. If applicable, include written comments or statements with the registration email.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.015(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Board's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to COL Bryan S. Green, DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The DFO will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the Board for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Board. The DFO will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Board Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Board before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting.

    Verbal Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Board is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Board during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least five business days in advance to the Board's DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The DFO will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Board Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment, and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than five minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Brenda Bowen, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of the Army.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13668 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch) Prize Competition Announcement AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of competition.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of applicable laws and regulations, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) is announcing the Army Expeditionary Technology Search—xTechSearch Prize Competition—for the Army to enhance engagements with the entrepreneurial funded community, small businesses, and other non-traditional defense partners. The xTechSearch program will provide an opportunity for businesses to pitch novel technology solutions, either a new application for an existing technology or an entirely new technology concept, to the Army.

    DATES:

    1. July 11, 2018. Deadline for submission of White Paper with xTechSearch Cover Letter registration form.

    2. July 30-August 31, 2018. Semifinalists—Up to 125 participants brief xTechSearch panels.

    3. October 8-10, 2018. Up to 25 finalists featured at the Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington, DC.

    4. April 2019. Capstone Demonstration with Senior Army Leadership.

    ADDRESSES:

    Proposal submissions should be emailed to [email protected] no later than 11 July 2018. Detailed information can be found at Challenge.gov: https://www.challenge.gov/challenge/army-expeditionary-technology-search-xtechsearch/

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Smith, Deputy Director for Laboratory Management ASA(ALT) Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Research and Technology, (703) 697-0685.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Eligibility: The entities allowed to participate in this competition are small businesses as defined in 13 CFR part 121. To qualify, the participating entity must fall within the size standard by North American Industry Classification System code 541713, 541714, and 541715.

    There may be only one submission per business. In addition, each entity:

    • Shall provide registration information in the xTechSearch Cover Letter registration form;

    • Shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States;

    • Shall perform the work in the United States.

    • May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.

    Registered participants shall be required to agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in a prize competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.

    Participants shall be required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility, in amounts determined by the Army, for claims by—

    • Third parties for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in a prize competition, with the Federal Government named as an additional insured under the registered participant's insurance policy and registered participants agreeing to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to prize competition activities; and

    • Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.

    Prizes will be offered under 15 U.S.C. Section 3719 (Prize competitions).

    • The total prize pool is $1.95M.

    Evaluation Criteria and Process Phase I: Concept White Paper Contest

    • All interested eligible contestants will submit a xTechSearch Cover Letter registration form with a White Paper, of no greater than 1000 words, describing the novel technology concept, innovative application concept, and integration with the Army's modernization priorities and outlining their knowledge, skills, capabilities, and approach for this challenge. Contestants' concept papers will be reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts and judges who will select semifinalists who will be awarded a prize of $1000 and be invited to the Phase II xTechSearch Technology Pitch Forums.

    • Concept White Papers will be ranked based on the novelty of the proposed technology to revolutionizing and modernizing the Army. Each white paper must include the following:

    ○ Proposed Army Modernization Priority alignment, ○ Proposed concept and current technology maturity,

    • Concept White Paper Scoring Criteria:

    ○ Potential for Impact/Revolutionizing the Army—50% ○ Scientific and Engineering Viability—30% ○ Team Experience and Abilities—20% Phase II: xTechSearch Technology Pitches

    • Up to one hundred twenty five (125) selected contestant semi-finalists will be invited to complete an in-person Technology pitch to a panel of Army and Department of Defense subject matter experts and judges at one of five selected locations across the United States.

    • xTechSearch Technology Pitches will be ranked based on the novelty of the proposed technology to revolutionizing and modernizing the Army. Finalists will be selected based on the propensity of the technology to revolutionize Army missions, solve an Army capability gap, and catalyze with Army assets. Each technology pitch must include a proposal to demonstrate proof-of-concept for the technologies within 6 months.

    • Up to twenty-five (25) finalists selected by the judge panel will receive a prize of $5000 and be invited to display an exhibit and make a formal public oral presentation of their proposal at the 2018 AUSA Annual Meeting Innovators' Corner in Washington, DC.

    • Scoring Criteria:

    ○ Potential for Impact/Revolutionizing the Army—50% ○ Scientific and Engineering Viability; Proof-of-Concept Demonstration Plan—30% ○ Team Experience and Abilities—20% Phase III: AUSA Innovators' Corner

    • Up to twenty-five (25) xTechSearch finalists will be featured at Innovators' Corner at the 2018 AUSA Annual Meeting and Exposition, 8-10 October 2018 in Washington, DC.

    • Finalists will provide a display and a presentation on their submission in an Army-sponsored exhibit space and engage with Department of Defense (DoD) customers, industry partners, and academia.

    • Up to twelve (12) Phase III prize winners will be announced, four (4) each day. Phase III prize winners will be awarded prizes of $125,000 and 6 months to demonstrate proof-of-concept for their xTechSearch technology, to be demonstrated at an xTechSearch Finale Demonstration.

    Phase IV: xTechSearch Finale Demonstration—April 2019

    • Each Phase III winner will demonstrate proof-of-concept for their technology solution to senior DoD, Government, and industry leadership. The winner of the Finale Demonstration will be awarded a prize of $200,000.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. Section 3719; Pub. L. 96-480, Section 24, as added Pub. L. 111-358, title I, Section 105a, Jan. 4, 2011 Stat. 3989

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13669 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-HA-0038] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Health Agency 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 27, 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 Defense Health Agency, TRICARE Health Plan, Policy and Benefits, 8111 Gatehouse Road, Falls Church, VA, 22042, Ms. Vonda Lawson or call (703) 275-6221.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: TriCare DoD/CHAMPUS Medical Claim Patient's Request for Medical Payment; DD-2642; OMB Control Number 0720-0006.

    Needs and Uses: The DD-2642, “TRICARE DoD/CHAMPUS Medical Claim Patient's Request for Medical Payment” form is used by TRICARE beneficiaries to claim reimbursement for medical expenses under the TRICARE Program (formerly the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)). The information collected will be used by TRICARE to determine beneficiary eligibility, other health insurance liability, certification that the beneficiary has the received care, and reimbursement for medical services received.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 207,500.

    Number of Respondents: 830,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 830,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The respondents to this information collection are TRICARE beneficiaries which include active duty service members, retirees, family members, and others. The DD-2642 is used by beneficiaries to file for reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs paid to providers and suppliers for authorized health care services or supplies. The information collected by the DD-2642 also aids TRICARE in determining beneficiary eligibility, health insurance liability and to certify the beneficiary has received the medical care as indicated. Respondents may obtain the DD-2642 by various methods. The DD-2642 may be completed online via the TRICARE website, tricare.mil. Additionally, respondents may print the form from the TRICARE website or the Department of Defense forms web page, www.esd.whs.mil/Directives/forms/ and complete the DD-2642 by hand. Respondents may also call their designated regional contractor who can direct respondents on how to obtain the DD-2642. Respondents can identify their regional contractor through the TRICARE website. Respondents residing overseas may visit their local military treatment facility Tricare Service Center to request a copy of the DD-2642. Respondents may complete the DD-2642 online and submit it immediately, or in some cases, choose to mail their completed DD-2642 to their regional contractor. The regional contractor then enters the information into the TRICARE Record Encounter Data System.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13712 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DoD-2018-OS-0017] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Basic Criminal History and Statement of Admission (Department of Defense Child Care Services Programs); DD Form 2981; OMB Control Number 0704-0516.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain a self-reported record of criminal history from each individual who comes into regular, reoccurring contact with children under the age of 18 years. Individuals are required to self-report any arrests, charges or convictions that would keep the individual from obtaining or maintaining a favorable suitability or fitness determination. Programs impacted are referenced within the 42 U.S. Code § 13041 and include impacted individuals such as employees, DoD contractors, providers, adults residing in a family child care home, volunteers, and others with regular reoccurring contact with children.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13704 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2018-OS-0036] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office for the Department of Defense 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 27, 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 DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 07G21, Alexandria, VA 22350, Darlene Sullivan, or call (571) 372-7867.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID); DD Forms 2965, 2910, and 2910-1; OMB Control Number 0704-0482.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to centralize case-level sexual assault data involving a member of the Armed Forces, in a manner consistent with statute and DoD regulations for Unrestricted and Restricted reporting, as well as to facilitate reports to Congress on claims of retaliation in connection with an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault made by or against a member of the Armed Force. Records may also be used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, conducting research, and case and business management. De-identified data may also be used to respond to mandated reporting requirements.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,780.

    Number of Respondents: 730.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 730.

    Average Burden per Response: 2.44 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    It is DoD policy to establish a culture free of sexual assault by providing an environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons covered by the regulation.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13701 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License; OLLI Technology Corporation dba Tanka AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Intent to Grant License.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to OLLI Technology Corporation dba Tanka a partially exclusive license to practice the Government-owned inventions described in the following U.S. Patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,023,760 titled “System and method for enhancing low-visibility imagery,” U.S. Patent No. 8,116,522 titled “Ship detection system and method from overhead images,” U.S. Patent No. 8,149,245 titled “Adaptive linear contrast method for enhancement of low-visibility imagery,” U.S. Patent No. 8,170,272 titled “Method for classifying vessels using features extracted from overhead imagery,” U.S. Patent No. 8,411,969 titled “Method for fusing overhead imagery with automatic vessel reporting systems,” U.S. Patent No. 8,422,738 titled “Adaptive automated synthetic aperture radar ship detection method with false alarm mitigation,” U.S. Patent No. 8,437,509 titled “System and method for inferring vessel speed from overhead images,” U.S. Patent No. 8,731,237 titled “Automatic asset detection for disaster relief using satellite imagery,” U.S. Patent No. 8,958,602 titled “System and method for tracking maritime domain targets from video data,” U.S. Patent No. 9,305,214 titled “Systems and methods for real-time horizon detection in images,” U.S. Patent No. 9,349,170 titled “Single image contrast enhancement method using the adaptive wiener filter,” and U.S. Patent No. 9,355,439 titled “Joint contrast enhancement and turbulence mitigation method,” as well as any re-issue.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen (15) days from the publication date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Research and Technology Applications, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, Code 72120, 53560 Hull St, Bldg A33, Room 2531, San Diego, CA 92152-5001. File an electronic copy of objections with [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Paul Herbert, 619-553-5118, [email protected]

    (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209(e); 37 CFR 404.7) Dated: June 19, 2018. E.K. Baldini, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13647 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0035] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0035. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 206-04, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ian Foss, 202-377-3681.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Income Driven Repayment Plan Request for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans and Federal Family Education Loan Programs.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0102.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,090,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,009,700.

    Abstract: The Department is requesting an extension of the current information collection. We are updating this Income-Driven Repayment Plan Request form to make it more user friendly and allow for easier processing by the servicers. No new questions are being asked, some existing questions are being streamlined and there is reformatting to allow for readability and ease in completing the form. There is no burden change based on these changes.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13690 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2018-ICCD-0051] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; International Early Learning Study (IELS) 2018 Main Study AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0051. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 206-04, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela, 202-245-7377 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: International Early Learning Study (IELS) 2018 Main Study.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0936.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,091.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,461.

    Abstract: The International Early Learning Study (IELS), scheduled to be conducted in 2018, is a new study sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization of industrialized countries. In the United States, the IELS is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The IELS focuses on young children and their cognitive and non-cognitive skills and competencies as they transition to primary school. The IELS is designed to examine: Children's early learning and development in a broad range of domains, including social and cognitive skills; the relationship between children's early learning and children's participation in early childhood education and care (ECEC); the role of contextual factors, including children's individual characteristics and their home backgrounds and experiences, in promoting young children's growth and development; and how early learning varies across and within countries prior to beginning, or in the early stages of primary school. In 2018, in the participating countries, including the United States, the IELS will assess nationally-representative samples of 5-year-old children enrolled in public and private schools that offer kindergarten in the United States through direct and indirect measures, and will collect contextual data about their home learning environments, ECEC histories, and demographic characteristics. The IELS will measure young children's knowledge, skills, and competencies in both cognitive and non-cognitive domains, including language and literacy, mathematics and numeracy, executive function/self-regulation, and social emotional skills. This assessment will take place as children are transitioning to primary school and will provide data on how U.S. children entering kindergarten compare with their international peers on skills deemed important for later success. To prepare for the main study, which will be conducted from October to December 2018, the IELS countries conducted a field test in the fall of 2017 to evaluate newly developed assessment instruments and questionnaires and also to test the study operations, and main study respondent recruitment began in September 2017. The request to conduct the 2017 IELS field test data collection and the IELS 2018 main study recruitment was approved in September 2017 (OMB #1850-0936 v.3-4). This request is to conduct the IELS 2018 main study.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13709 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Special Programs for Indian Children—Demonstration Grants AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs—Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.299A.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: June 26, 2018.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: July 11, 2018.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 10, 2018.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Ramsey, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W203, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-3774. Email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program is to provide financial assistance to projects that develop, test, and demonstrate the effectiveness of services and programs to improve the educational opportunities and achievement of Indian students in preschool, elementary, and secondary schools.

    Background: For FY 2018, the Department will continue to use the priority for Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) first used in FY 2015 to support community-led, comprehensive projects to help American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children become college- and career-ready. NYCP funding is one of many efforts across the Federal government to coordinate, measure progress, and make investments in Native youth programs. These efforts aim to address educational and other outcomes for Native youth not currently being met. These grants are designed to help communities improve educational outcomes, specifically college- and career-readiness, through strategies tailored to address the specific challenges and build upon the specific opportunities and culture within a community. Such strategies can include supplemental academic programs or courses, social-emotional services, cultural education, and other support services for AI/AN students and families.

    Recognizing the importance of Tribes to the education of Native youth, NYCP projects are based on a partnership that includes at least one Tribe and one school district or Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded school. We expect that this partnership will facilitate capacity building within the community, generating positive results and practices for student college-and-career readiness beyond the period of Federal financial assistance. The requirement of a written partnership agreement helps to ensure that all relevant partners needed to achieve the project goals are included from the outset. Grantees' project evaluations should help inform future practices that effectively improve outcomes for AI/AN youth.

    Because educational choice is a promising option to expand access to high-quality education and improve college- and career-readiness for Native youth, this competition also includes the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priority 1 to empower families and individuals to choose a high-quality education. For this competition, the Department is particularly interested in community-led approaches to educational choice, such as the expansion of existing charter schools, the use of supplemental Education Scholarship Accounts, and course choice.

    Priorities: This competition contains one absolute priority and four competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the absolute priority is from 34 CFR 263.21(c)(1) and 263.20. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), competitive preference priority one is from 34 CFR 263.21(c)(5), competitive preference priority two is from 34 CFR 263.21(b), and paragraph (b) of competitive preference priority three is from 34 CFR 263.21(c)(2). Paragraph (a) of competitive preference priority three (relating to Promise Zones) is from the notice of final priority published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035). Competitive preference priority four is from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Native Youth Community Projects.

    A native youth community project is—

    (1) Focused on a defined local geographic area;

    (2) Centered on the goal of ensuring that Indian students are prepared for college and careers;

    (3) Informed by evidence, which could be either a needs assessment conducted within the last three years or other data analysis, on—

    (i) The greatest barriers, both in and out of school, to the readiness of local Indian students for college and careers;

    (ii) Opportunities in the local community to support Indian students; and

    (iii) Existing local policies, programs, practices, service providers, and funding sources;

    (4) Focused on one or more barriers or opportunities with a community-based strategy or strategies and measurable objectives;

    (5) Designed and implemented through a partnership of various entities, which—

    (i) Must include—

    (A) One or more Tribes or their Tribal education agencies; and

    (B) One or more BIE-funded schools, one or more local educational agencies (LEAs), or both; and

    (ii) May include other optional entities, including community-based organizations, national nonprofit organizations, and Alaska regional corporations; and

    (6) Led by an entity that—

    (i) Is eligible for a grant under the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program; and

    (ii) Demonstrates, or partners with an entity that demonstrates, the capacity to improve outcomes that are relevant to the project focus through experience with programs funded through other sources.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to an additional 13 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets one or more of these priorities; the total possible points for each priority are noted in parentheses.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority One (zero or two points).

    Projects that include an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) or Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program, or a BIE-funded school that is located in an area designated by the U.S. Census Bureau with a locale code of 42 or 43.

    Competitive Preference Priority Two (zero or three points).

    Although all NYCP grantees are required to have an eligible Indian Tribe or its Tribal education agency (TEA) as a partner, we award three points to an application in which the lead partner is an eligible Indian Tribe or its TEA, an Indian organization (as defined in this notice), or a Tribal college or university (as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)).

    Competitive Preference Priority Three (zero or three points).

    Applications that meet one of the following criteria—

    (a) Designed to serve a local community within a federally designated Promise Zone; or

    (b) Submitted by a partnership or consortium in which the lead applicant or one of its partners has received a grant in the last four years under one or more of the following grant programs:

    (1) State Tribal Education Partnership (section 6132 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)).

    (2) Alaska Native Education Program (ESEA sections 6301-6306).

    (3) Promise Neighborhoods (ESEA sections 4623-4624).

    Note:

    As a participant in the Promise Zone Initiative, the Department is cooperating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and nine other Federal agencies to support comprehensive revitalization efforts in 22 high-poverty urban, rural, and Tribal communities across the country. Each application for NYCP funds that is accompanied by a Certification of Consistency with Promise Zone Goals and Implementation (HUD Form 50153) signed by an authorized representative of the lead organization of a Promise Zone designated by HUD or USDA will receive two points, under competitive preference priority 3(a). An application for NYCP grant funds that is not accompanied by a signed certification (HUD Form 50153) will not receive points under competitive preference priority 3(a), but may still be eligible to receive points under competitive preference priority 3(b) if it received one of the grants listed. To view the list of designated Promise Zones and lead organizations please go to https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/promise-zones/promise-zones-overview/. The certification form is available at: www.hudexchange.info/resource/4396/promise-zones-certification-form-and-guidance/.

    Note:

    An application will not receive points for both (a) and (b) under competitive preference priority 3.

    Competitive Preference Priority Four—Empowering Families and Individuals to Choose a High-Quality Education that Meets their Unique Needs (zero to 5 points).

    Projects that are designed to address increasing access to educational choice (as defined in this notice) for students who are Indians, as defined in section 6151 of the ESEA.

    Definitions: The following definitions apply to this competition. The definition of “educational choice” is from the Supplemental Priorities, the definition of “evidence-based” is from section 8101(21) of the ESEA, and the definition of “Indian organization” is from 34 CFR 263.20.

    Educational choice means the opportunity for a child or student (or a family member on their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized path for learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the child's or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-based activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made available to a student through a grant program are those that supplement what is provided by a child's or student's geographically assigned school or the institution in which he or she is currently enrolled and may include:

    (1) Public educational programs or courses including those offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, public online education providers, or other public education providers; or

    (2) Private or home-based educational programs or courses including those offered by private schools, private online providers, private tutoring providers, community or faith-based organizations, or other private education providers.

    Evidence-based, when used with respect to a State, LEA, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

    (1) Demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—

    (a) Strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;

    (b) Moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or

    (c) Promising evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

    (2)(a) Demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

    (b) Includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

    Indian organization means an organization that—

    (1) Is legally established—

    (a) By Tribal or inter-Tribal charter or in accordance with State or Tribal law; and

    (b) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;

    (2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;

    (3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;

    (4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;

    (5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and

    (6) Is not an agency of State or local government.

    Application Requirements: The following requirements apply to all applications submitted under this competition and are from section 6121 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 263.20, 263.21, and 263.22. An applicant must include in its application:

    (a) A description of the defined geographic area to be served by the project.

    (b) Evidence, based on either a needs assessment conducted within the last three years or other data analysis, of—

    (1) The greatest barriers, both in and out of school, to the readiness of local Indian students for college and careers;

    (2) Opportunities in the local community to support Indian students; and

    (3) Existing local policies, programs, practices, service providers, and funding sources.

    (c) A project design and management plan that—

    (1) Addresses one or more barriers or opportunities towards the goal of ensuring that Indian students are prepared for college and careers, as identified in the local needs assessment or other data analysis; and

    (2) Uses a community-based strategy (or strategies), and measureable objectives for that strategy (or strategies) that can be used to measure progress toward the goal.

    (d) A copy of an agreement signed by the required partners in the proposed project, identifying the responsibilities of each partner in the proposed project. Signatories to the agreement must include at least one Tribe or its TEA and at least one LEA or BIE-funded school, as described in the absolute priority above. Letters of support do not meet the requirement for a signed partnership agreement.

    (e) Evidence that the applicant or one of its partners has demonstrated the capacity to improve outcomes that are relevant to the project focus through experience with programs funded through other sources.

    (f) A description of how Indian Tribes and parents and family of Indian children have been, and will be, involved in developing and implementing the proposed activities.

    (g) Information demonstrating that the proposed project is an evidence-based program, where applicable, which may include an existing evidence-based program that has been modified to be culturally appropriate for Indian students. Applicants that believe the evidence-based requirement is not applicable to their project must give an explanation in the application of why it is not applicable.

    (h) A description of how the applicant will continue the proposed activities once the grant period is over.

    (i) For projects that plan to use the grant funding for early childhood or kindergarten programs, evidence that the program is effective in preparing young children to make sufficient academic growth by the end of grade 3.

    Note:

    Applications that do not include the required documents to demonstrate eligibility or other program requirements will likely be rejected or deemed ineligible for review.

    Statutory Hiring Preference:

    (a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—

    (1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and

    (2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

    (b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7441.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 263. (e) The notice of final priority published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17035). (f) The Supplemental Priorities.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian Tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: $25,600,000.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000-1,000,000.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $750,000 per year.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 26-40.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months. Grants are for an initial period of three years, with the possibility of renewal for an additional year if the Secretary determines that the grantee has made substantial progress.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants for this program are State educational agencies; LEAs, including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; Indian Tribes; Indian organizations; BIE-funded schools; Tribal colleges and universities (as defined in section 316(b) of the HEA, 20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)); or a consortium of any of these entities.

    The absolute priority for NYCP requires that an applicant be a member of a partnership that includes at least one Tribe or its TEA and at least one LEA or BIE-funded school. We will reject applications that do not include at least these two types of partners.

    Note:

    Including as a partner an Indian organization or Tribal college or university does not satisfy the requirement, under the absolute priority, of including the Tribe itself as one of the partners. A Tribe may designate another entity to apply on its behalf only if the entity submits as part of its application a Tribal resolution authorizing the designation for the purpose of applying for and administering this Demonstration grant.

    Applicants applying as an Indian organization must demonstrate that the entity meets the definition of “Indian organization.”

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities described in its application.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

    2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program, an application may include business information that the applicant considers proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

    Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachment Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of FY 2018.

    4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 30 pages and (2) use the following standards:

    • A page is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is 12 point or larger but no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the budget narrative justification; the consortium agreement or partnership agreement; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or other required attachments.

    6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application for funding. To do so, please email [email protected] with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the following information:

    (a) Applicant's name, mailing address, and phone number;

    (b) Contact person's name and email address;

    (c) The defined local geographic area to be served by the project;

    (d) Name(s) of partnering LEA(s) or BIE-funded school(s);

    (e) Name(s) of partnering Tribe(s) or TEA(s); and

    (f) If appropriate, names of other partnering organizations.

    Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and 34 CFR part 263. We will award up to 100 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.

    a. Need for project (Maximum 15 points). The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the project is informed by evidence, which could be either a needs assessment conducted within the last three years or other data analysis documenting the following:

    (i) The greatest barriers both in and out of school to the readiness of local Indian students for college and careers;

    (ii) Opportunities in the local community to support Indian students; and

    (iii) Existing local policies, programs, practices, service providers, and funding sources.

    b. Quality of the project design (Maximum 30 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) (Up to 4 points) The extent to which the project is focused on a defined local geographic area.

    (ii) (Up to 6 points) The extent to which the proposed project is evidence-based, where applicable, which may include an existing evidence-based program that has been modified to be culturally appropriate for Indian students.

    (iii) (Up to 7 points) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

    (iv) (Up to 8 points) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.

    (v) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services.

    c. Quality of project personnel (Maximum 10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) (Up to 6 points) The extent to which the applicant, or one of its partners, demonstrates capacity to improve outcomes that are relevant to the project focus through experience with programs funded through other sources.

    (ii) (Up to 2 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

    (iii) (Up to 2 points) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

    Note:

    Please note that section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act requires that to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee must give to Indians preference and opportunities in connection with the administration of the grant, and give Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

    d. Adequacy of resources (Maximum 10 points). The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) (Up to 5 points) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.

    (ii) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

    e. Quality of the management plan (Maximum 25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) (Up to 15 points) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (ii) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which Indian Tribes and parents and families of Indian children have been, and will be, involved in developing and implementing the proposed activities.

    (iii) (Up to 5 points) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

    f. Quality of the project evaluation (Maximum 10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (i) (Up to 7 points) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

    (ii) (Up to 3 points) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.

    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed the following performance measures for measuring the overall effectiveness of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children program:

    (1) The percentage of the annual measurable objectives, as described in the application, that are met by grantees; and

    (2) The percentage of grantees that report a significant increase in community collaborative efforts that promote college and career readiness of Indian children.

    These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in developing the proposed project and identifying the method of evaluation. Each grantee will be required to provide, in its annual performance and final reports, data about its progress in meeting these measures.

    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Jason Botel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13728 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0040] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0040. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 207-13, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kimberly Smith, 202-453-6459.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0726.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,300.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 14,300.

    Abstract: The purpose of Indian Education Formula Grant to Local Agencies, as authorized under section 6116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is to assist grantees to provide Indian students with the opportunity to meet the same challenging state standards as all other students and meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The Indian Education Formula Grant (CFDA 84.060A), is neither competitive nor discretionary and requires the annual submission of the application from either a local education agency, tribe, Indian organization or Indian community based organization. The amount of the award for each applicant is determined by a formula based on the reported number of American Indian/Alaska Native students identified in the application, the state per pupil expenditure, and the total appropriation available. The Office of Indian Education (OIE) of The Department of Education (ED) collects annual performance data within the same system that collects the annual application. The application and the annual performance report are both be housed in the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission System. The 524B Annual Performance Report (APR) was designed for discretionary grants, however the title VI program is a formula grant program. The EASIE APR goes beyond the generic 524B APR and facilitates the collection of more specific and comprehensive data due to grantees entering project specific data into an online database.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13609 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0046] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program—Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table Form AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2018-ICCD-0046. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, LBJ, Room 207-13, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Justis Tuia, 202-453-6654.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Magnet Schools Assistance Program—Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0025.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 116.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 58.

    Abstract: The collection of this information is part of the government-wide effort to improve the performance and accountability of all federal programs, under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) passed in 1993, the Uniform Guidance, and EDGAR. Under GPRA, a process for using performance indicators to set program performance goals and to measure and report program results was established. To implement GPRA, ED developed GPRA measures at every program level to quantify and report program progress required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Under the Uniform Guidance and EDGAR, recipients of federal awards are required to submit performance and financial expenditure information. The GPRA program level measures and budget information for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) are reported in the Annual Performance Report (APR). The APR is required under 2 CFR 200.328 and 34 CFR 75.118 and 75.590. The annual report provides data on the status of the funded project that corresponds to the scope and objectives established in the approved application and any amendments. To ensure that accurate and reliable data are reported to Congress on program implementation and performance outcomes, the MSAP APR collects the raw data from grantees in a consistent format to calculate these data in the aggregate.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13610 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Science, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, July 12, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday, July 13, 2018 8:00, a.m. to 12:00 noon.

    ADDRESSES:

    Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Drive, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katie Runkles, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-6529.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of this Board is to make recommendation to DOE-SC with respect to the basic energy sciences research program.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of the Agenda • News From the Office of Science • News From the Office of Basic Energy Sciences • BES 40th Report Presentations • Materials Sciences and Engineering Division COV Report • Scientific User Facilities Division COV Meeting Announcement • Public Comments • Adjourn Breaks Taken as Appropriate

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Katie Runkles at (301) 903-6594 (fax), or [email protected] (email). Reasonable provisions will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 45 days on the Committee's website: www.science.energy.gov/bes/besac/meetings.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on June 21, 2018. Latanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13693 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection package requests a three-year extension of “Industrial Relations,” OMB Control Number 1910-0600. This proposed collection covers major Departmental Contractor Human Resource Information necessary for contract management, administration, and cost control.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 26, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the Desk Officer for the Department of Energy of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 735 17th Street NW, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503 and to Alesia Gant, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1615, or by email at [email protected]; Ms. Gant may also be contacted at (202) 287-1476.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Alesia Gant at the address listed above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No. 1910-0600;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Industrial Relations;

    (3) Type of Request: Renewal;

    (4) Purpose: This information is required for management oversight of the Department of Energy's Facilities Management Contractors and to ensure that the programmatic and administrative management requirements of the contracts are managed efficiently and effectively;

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 42;

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 316;

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 4,093;

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7256; 48 CFR 970.0370-1.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 18, 2018. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13677 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EIA submitted an information collection request for extension as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension with changes to Form EIA-63C, Densified Biomass Fuel Report under OMB Control Number 1905-0209. Form EIA-63C collects data on wood pellet fuel and other densified biomass fuel production, sales, and inventory levels from U.S. manufacturing facilities of densified biomass fuel products for the purpose of estimating densified biomass fuel consumption in the United States, as well as production, sales, and inventory at state, regional, and national levels.

    DATES:

    EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than July 26, 2018. If you anticipate any difficulties in submitting your comments by the deadline, contact the DOE Desk Officer at 202-395-0710.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to:

    DOE Desk Officer: Brandon Debruhl, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Email: [email protected]
    and to: Connor Murphy, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585, Email: [email protected] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions, should be directed to Connor Murphy at 202-287-5982, or by email [email protected]. You can view Form EIA-63C Densified Biomass Fuel Report online at https://www.eia.gov/survey/#eia-63c.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No. 1905-0209;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Densified Biomass Fuel Report;

    (3) Type of Request: Three-year extension with changes;

    (4) Purpose: Form EIA-63C Densified Biomass Fuel Report is part of EIA's comprehensive energy data program. The survey collects information on the manufacture, shipment, exports, energy characteristics, and sales of pellet fuels and other densified biomass fuel products data from facilities that manufacture densified biomass fuel products, primarily pellet fuels, for energy applications. The data collected are a primary source of information for the nation's growing production of biomass products for heating and electric power generation, for use in both domestic and foreign markets.

    (4a) Changes to Information Collection: Respondents will no longer have to answer the following six questions:

    • Part 2 Question 2.2 “What is the operational month” • Part 2 Question 2.4 “What is the total installed horsepower of the pellet extrusion machinery at this facility” • Part 2. Question 2.6 “What is the planned maximum annual production capacity at this facility” • Part 2. Question 2.7 “What is the planned total installed horsepower of the pellet extrusion machinery at this facility” • Part 3. Question 3.2 “In the reporting period, did the mill utilize any portion of the above feedstock for uses other than transformation into densified biomass products, such as to operate the mill, produce electricity (combined heat and power) or other beneficial use of energy produced (such as heating/cooling)” • Part 4. Question 4.2 “Export Port.”

    EIA also removed the requirement to report quantity, characteristics, inventory, and revenue data on compressed fuel logs, bricks and briquettes from on questions 3.3, 3.4 and 4.1.

    Finally, the due date for annual respondents (small biomass fuel manufacturers having a capacity of less than 10,000 tons per year or planned facilities) to report is changed from February 1 to June 1 to coincide with the industry's off-season and ease their reporting burden during the heating season which is their busiest time of the year. Respondents that need to file annually will only need to report limited data in Parts 1 and 2 of the form;

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 108;

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 1,065;

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,467;

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: The cost of the burden hours is estimated to be $111,026 (1,467 burden hours times $75.69 per hour). EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the survey other than the costs associated with the burden hours.

    Statutory Authority: Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-275, codified as 15 U.S.C. 772(b) and the DOE Organization Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-91, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2018. Nanda Srinivasan Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13678 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1274-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: DEOK submits compliance filing re: Commission's 6/1/2018 order to be effective 1/1/2012.

    Filed Date: 6/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180620-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1808-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-06-20 Termination of SA 2998 Exelon-MISO ENRIS Agreement (J371) to be effective 7/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180620-5021.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1809-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Request of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. for Temporary and Limited Waiver of Rate Schedule.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1810-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-06-20_Termination of SA 3050 SC Interconnection-ITCM GIA (J298) to be effective 6/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180620-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/11/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13662 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-172-000] American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 15, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. submitted an application for approval of revenue requirement for reactive power service in MISO.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2018.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13595 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14878-000] FreedomWorks, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 1, 2018, FreedomWorks, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mt. Storm Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Bismarck in Grant County, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An existing Mt. Storm Lake as an upper reservoir with a surface area of 1,200 acres and a storage capacity of 44,000 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 3,200 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) as many as two new lower reservoirs with a combined surface area of 690 acres and a combined storage capacity of 12,000 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 2,350 to 2,425 feet msl created through construction of new semi-circular dams and/or dikes; (3) as many as eight new 10,000-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter penstocks connecting the upper reservoir and lower reservoir; (4) two new 300-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouses containing four turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 1,000 megawatts; (5) a new transmission line connecting the powerhouse to a nearby electric grid interconnection point with options to evaluate multiple grid interconnection locations; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 4,380,000 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Tim Williamson, FreedomWorks, LLC, 525 Wren Lane, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 369-6324.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14878-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14878) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13708 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL18-174-000] American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 19, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. submitted a filing of proposed cost-based revenue requirement for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation or Other Sources Service under Schedule 2 of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. Open Access Transmission Tariff.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 pm Eastern Time on July 10, 2018.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13705 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-738-005; ER11-3097-009; ER10-1186-008; ER10-1329-008.

    Applicants: DTE Electric Company, DTE Energy Trading, Inc., DTE Energy Supply, Inc., St. Paul Cogeneration, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of the DTE MBR Entities, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1619-004.

    Applicants: Cottonwood Energy Company LP.

    Description: Supplement (Clarification) to May 11, 2018 Cottonwood Energy Company LP tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-219-007.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Ancillary Erratum to Compliance Filing in ER17-219 to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180615-5243.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2088-001: ER16-2035-001; ER16-1833-003; ER14-474-008.

    Applicants: Apple Blossom Wind, LLC, Black Oak Wind, LLC, Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC, Sempra Generation, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Central Region of Apple Blossom Wind, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/17/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1190-001.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Distribution Agreement to Reflect Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5019.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1267-002.

    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: SCMCN ER18-1267 Deficiency Filing Part 1 to be effective 3/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1267-003.

    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: SCMCN ER18-1267 Deficiency Filing Part 2 to be effective 3/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5090.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1424-001.

    Applicants: Rio Bravo Fresno, A California Joint Venture.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 4/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1427-001.

    Applicants: Rio Bravo Rocklin, A California Joint Venture.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 4/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1534-001.

    Applicants: East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC Amendment to App for Market-Based Rates to be effective 7/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1535-001.

    Applicants: Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC Amendment to App for Market-Based Rates to be effective 7/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1577-001.

    Applicants: Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 5/14/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/15/18.

    Accession Number: 20180615-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1781-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2041R7 Kansas City Board of Public Utilities PTP Agreement to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1795-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Hope PSA to be effective 5/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1796-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA SA No. 4856; Queue No. AA2-121/AB2-104/AC1-003 to be effective 5/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5024.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1797-000.

    Applicants: Ioway Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Ioway Energy MBR Tariff to be effective 6/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1798-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5098; Queue No. AB1-173/AB1-173A to be effective 5/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1799-000.

    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Rate Schedules Nos. 185 and 157 TCJA to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1800-000; ER18-1801-000; ER18-1802-000; ER18-1803-000; ER18-1804-000; ER18-1805-000; ER18-1806-000; ER18-1807-000.

    Applicants: Bendwind, LLC, DeGreeff DP, LLC, DeGreeffpa, LLC, Groen Wind, LLC, Hillcrest Wind, LLC, Larswind, LLC, Sierra Wind, LLC, TAIR Windfarm, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation Market Base Rate Tariffs of Bendwind, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180619-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, nterventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13596 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-8479-001] Herrin, Michael D.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 19, 2018, Michael D. Herrin, submitted for filing an, application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8 (2018).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 10, 2018.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13664 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IN18-7-000] Footprint Power LLC; Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC; Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission in the above-captioned docket,1 with the exceptions noted below, the staff of the Office of Enforcement are designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2017), they will not serve as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201 (2017), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.

    1Footprint Power LLC, et al., 163 FERC ¶ 61,198 (2018).

    Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

    Jeremy Medovoy Catherine Collins Katherine Walsh Mark Nagle Benjamin Jarrett John Karp Alfred Jasins Dated: June 20, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13706 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14877-000] Peak Hour Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 17, 2018, Peak Hour Power, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Silver Creek Pumped Storage Project to be located on Silver Creek Reservoir in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 8,000-foot-long, 125- to 175-foot-high roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled semi-circular dam and/or dike forming an upper reservoir having a surface area of 150 acres and a total storage capacity between approximately 8,000 and 10,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation between approximately 1,650 and 1,750 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a lower reservoir encompassing the existing Silver Creek Reservoir and neighboring abandoned mines land and having a surface area of 100 acres and a total storage capacity of 10,000 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation between 1,200 and 1,300 feet msl; (3) a 3,000-foot-long tunnel connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a powerhouse containing two turbine units with a total rated capacity of 250 megawatts; (5) a 2-mile-long transmission line connecting to an existing 230-kilovolt (kV) line or a 4000-foot-long transmission line connecting to an existing 69-kV line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. Possible initial fill water would come from local inflow, including groundwater. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 784,750 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Paul DiRenzo, Peak Hour Power, LLC, 214 Norwegian Woods Drive, Pottsville, PA 17901; phone: 570-617-7810.

    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone: (202) 502-6736.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14877-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14877) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13707 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1299-004.

    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing to be effective 4/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-899-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Service Agreement—EQT Energy, LLC 6-19-2018 to be effective 6/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 6/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180618-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/2/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13663 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9979-09-Region 6] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for South Louisiana Methanol L.P., St. James Methanol Plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final Order on Petitions for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated May 29, 2018 denying a Petition dated December 29, 2016 and a Petition dated August 10, 2017 from the Louisiana Environmental Action Network and the Sierra Club (collectively, the Petitions and Petitioners, respectively). The Petitions requested that the EPA object to the Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit 1560-00292-V1 issued on June 30, 2017 by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to South Louisiana Methanol, L.P. (SLM) for its Methanol Plant located in St. James, St. James Parish, Louisiana.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order and Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Toups, EPA Region 6, by phone (214) 665-7258, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

    EPA received a first petition from the Petitioners on December 29, 2016 and a second petition from the same Petitioners on August 10, 2017 for the operating permit issued on June 30, 2017 to SLM for its Methanol Facility located in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The Petitioners requested that the Administrator object to the proposed operating permit issued by the LDEQ to SLM based on eight primary claims in the Petition. The claims are described in detail in Section IV of the Order. In summary, the issues raised include: Matters properly addressable through preconstruction permit requirements, such as the establishment of proper preconstruction emission limits and standards (various claims, introduction to Order Section IV); claims concerning the failure to require Best Available Control Technology (Claim IV); claims of permit condition unenforceability (Claim V); claims of unenforceability of emissions limits that apply to the boiler (Claim V.A), the Reformer Vent (Claim V.B), the flare (Claim V.D), the crude methanol tank (Claim V.E), the cooling towers (Claim V. G), from miscellaneous fired sources (Claim V.F), including CO2e emissions from such fired sources (Claim V.C). On May 29, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order denying the Petitions. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than August 27, 2018.

    Dated: June 15, 2018. Anne Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13652 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9979-38-OLEM] Brownfields Utilization, Investment and Local Development (BUILD) Act AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development (BUILD) Act was enacted on March 23, 2018 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. The BUILD Act reauthorized the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Brownfields Program, and made amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. These amendments affect brownfields grants, ownership and liability provisions, and State & Tribal Response Programs. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing policy and guidance to implement the BUILD Act amendments. As part of this process, the EPA is soliciting comment on three provisions in the BUILD Act: The authority to increase the per-site cleanup grant amounts to $500,000, the new multi-purpose grant authority, and the new small community assistance grant authority.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted through July 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send any comments to [email protected] no later than July 10, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Lentz, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-2745, [email protected] or Megan Quinn, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-2773, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Publication of this notice will start a two-week comment period for stakeholders to respond to the questions included in this notice. Comments will be accepted through July 10, 2018. EPA expects to develop policy on these three grant programs and incorporate them into the Agency's guidelines for the FY 2019 brownfields grant cycle.

    Background

    The Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development (BUILD) Act was enacted on March 23, 2018 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. The BUILD Act reauthorized the EPA's Brownfields Program, and made amendments to CERCLA, as amended by the 2002 Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. These amendments affect brownfields grants, ownership and liability provisions, and State & Tribal Response Programs. The EPA is developing policy and guidance to implement the BUILD Act. As part of that process, the EPA is soliciting comment on three provisions in the BUILD Act: The authority to increase the per site cleanup grant amounts to $500,000, the new multi-purpose grant authority, and the new small community assistance grant authority.

    Cleanup Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act amended CERCLA Section 104(k)(3)(A)(ii) to increase the ceiling for brownfields cleanup grant funding from $200,000 to $500,000 per site; eligible entities can request a waiver up to $650,000 per site, based on the anticipated level of contamination, size, or ownership status of the site. The applicant must own the site to expend any resources on cleanup at the site. The Agency's primary concern is one of community access to brownfields cleanup funds. Increasing the amount of single cleanup grants will most likely decrease the total number of grants that may be awarded in any given fiscal year, therefore decreasing the number of brownfield sites cleaned-up and communities served, particularly when annual appropriations remain level or decrease.

    Given these parameters, the Agency is interested in receiving comments from communities and other stakeholders on the following considerations:

    1. If a community receives a $500,000 cleanup grant, how likely is it that the community could meet the 20 percent cost share statutory requirement (CERCLA 104(k)(10)(B)(iii))? How would communities meet the 20 percent cost share requirement? Do stakeholders support a higher per grant funding amount, with cost share requirement of less than 20 percent, even if the result is fewer communities will receive brownfields cleanup grants?

    2. In your community's experience, how long does the average brownfield cleanup take to complete? Please provide information on the average length of time, including from the time of state review and approval of a clean-up plan to the time when the brownfield site is ready for reuse. What are the barriers your community experiences in getting a brownfield site cleaned up and ready for reuse?

    Multipurpose Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act established a new Multipurpose Brownfield Grant program. Under this new authority, EPA may provide a maximum of $1 million in funding per grant to an eligible entity to inventory, characterize, assess, plan for or remediate one or more brownfield sites within a target area. The statute requires that a Multipurpose Grant recipient own the brownfields property prior to expending grant resources to remediate the property. The grant funding may be made available to a grant recipient for a maximum of five years. While the EPA has authority to award multipurpose grants up to $1,000,000, the EPA is considering piloting the grants at no more than $700,000.

    Given these parameters, the Agency is interested in receiving comments from communities and other stakeholders on the following considerations:

    1. Do communities most need funding for brownfields inventory, planning, site assessment or site remediation activities?

    2. Do communities typically have in place an “overall plan for revitalization of the one or more brownfields within the proposed area in which the multipurpose grant will be used” or would they most likely need to create this plan using multipurpose grant funds?

    3. What is a reasonable number of accomplishments (e.g., brownfields site assessments and site cleanups) to expect from a grant recipient that receives a $700,000 multipurpose grant over a five-year grant period?

    4. What complications and barriers will affect a grant recipient's ability to achieve these accomplishments?

    128(a) Small Grant Policy

    The BUILD Act added a new authority for the EPA to make grants to states and tribes to provide training, technical assistance or research assistance to support a small or disadvantaged community up to $20,000 per community. Site specific assessment and cleanup activities are not allowable expenditures under this grant authority. The EPA is developing further guidance on (1) the types of activities that are eligible expenses (including examples of such activities) and (2) the evaluation criteria that the EPA will use for evaluating and selecting proposals.

    Accordingly, the EPA is soliciting comment on the following issues:

    1. The EPA anticipates that state and tribes may provide the following activities to small and disadvantaged communities under this grant: Brownfields outreach and education, technical support, economic or market analyses to support the identification of reuse options for a brownfield site, the implementation or use of the EPA's Land Revitalization tools, and preparation of a needs assessment for developing a Tribal Response Program. What other types of activities should be considered as eligible expenditures under this grant program?

    2. The EPA plans to include the following evaluation criteria for proposals submitted under this grant program: Description of the target community, description/purpose of the proposed project, expected outcomes, description of key activities, what entity will be conducting the activities (e.g., state, tribe, contractor), leveraged resources being provided (as necessary), approximate timeline for completing the eligible activities, the amount of funding requested, an explanation of why existing state and tribal funding is inadequate to conduct or complete the eligible activities, and a demonstration of support from the community that will benefit from the funded activity. What other types of evaluation criteria may be useful for the EPA to use when evaluating proposals and selecting grant recipients?

    Dated: June 6, 2018. David R. Lloyd, Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13719 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0365; FRL-9979-05-OAR] Call for Information on Adverse Effects of Strategies for Attainment and Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; call for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), is soliciting information to facilitate the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) consideration of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

    DATES:

    All comments and information submitted in response to this call for information should be received by the EPA by October 24, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments and related information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0365, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Robin Langdon, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code C-439-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-5695; fax number 919-541-0804; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background Information

    Sections 109(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) require appointment of an independent scientific review committee that is charged with periodically reviewing the existing air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommending any new standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate. Since the early 1980s, the requirement for an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the CASAC.

    Sections 109(d)(2)(C)(i)-(iii) of the Act additionally require the independent scientific review committee to advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; and advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity. Section 109(d)(2)(C)(iv) of the Act further requires the independent scientific review committee to “advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such” NAAQS. As noted in the Administrator's May 9, 2018, memorandum, “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” 1 these topics may include information which is not relevant to the standard-setting process,2 but they provide important policy context for the public, co-regulators, and the EPA.

    1 Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/image2018-05-09-173219.pdf.

    2 The Supreme Court has held that section 109(b) “unambiguously bars cost considerations from the NAAQS-setting process.” Whitman v. Am. Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 471 (2001).

    To facilitate the CASAC's consideration of such effects, the EPA requests interested parties to submit information on any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of existing, new, or revised NAAQS for consideration by the CASAC.

    Interested parties are encouraged to identify all relevant information, with a particular emphasis on peer-reviewed research studies that have been published or accepted for publication and other analyses in the following categories: Assessments of the impacts of various types of strategies for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS, including requirements for stationary sources, area sources, and/or mobile sources of emissions; evaluations of the effects of permitting requirements, both new source review and prevention of significant deterioration requirements, on economic growth and other relevant effects listed; examinations of the potential impacts of nonattainment status, including the effects on overall economic growth and employment; and evaluations of potential impacts on public health, public welfare, energy production and consumption, and other social effects of interest.

    The EPA also seeks information on inter-pollutant trade-offs from strategies to attain and maintain existing, new or revised NAAQS, and information on distributional effects, including changes in exposures and risk, resulting from alternate attainment strategies for NAAQS, as well as other information related to adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects that may result from attainment of existing, new or revised NAAQS. Some aspects of this information may also be relevant to the EPA's review of the air quality criteria, which section 108(a)(2) of the Act describes as reflecting “the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires that the EPA review these criteria periodically. To ensure this statutory requirement is met for ozone and other photochemical oxidants, elsewhere in today's Federal Register we are announcing initiation of a new periodic review of the criteria for ozone and other photochemical oxidants and issuing a call for information that would facilitate the EPA's review of these criteria.

    II. How To Submit Information to the Docket

    Submit information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0365, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submissions. Once submitted, information cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    When considering submitting CBI, do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

    Dated: June 12, 2018. Panagiotis Tsirigotis, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13718 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2018-0274; FRL-9979-56-ORD] Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone—Call for Scientific and Policy-Relevant Information AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; call for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) are preparing an Integrated Review Plan (IRP) and an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) as part of the review of the air quality criteria and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3) and related photochemical oxidants. The IRP will summarize the plan for the review, including the initial identification of policy-relevant issues and questions to frame the review. The ISA will build on the scientific assessment conducted for the last O3 review, focusing on assessing newly available information since the last assessment. Interested parties are invited to assist the EPA by submitting information regarding significant new O3 research and policy-relevant issues for consideration in this review of the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) O3 standards.

    DATES:

    All communications and information submitted in response to this call for information should be received by the EPA by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments and related information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2018- 0274 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information regarding the IRP, contact Dr. Deirdre L. Murphy, OAQPS, telephone: 919-541-0729, or email: [email protected] For information regarding the ISA, contact Dr. Tom Luben, NCEA, telephone: 919-541-5762, or email: luben.tom@epa.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Information About the Project

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then issue “air quality criteria” for those pollutants. The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutants in the ambient air . . . .” CAA section 108(a)(2). Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish NAAQS for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of the Act requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. Under the same provision, EPA is also to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the revised air quality criteria.

    Section 109(d)(2) of the Act requires appointment of an independent scientific review committee that is to periodically review the existing air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any new standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may be appropriate. Since the early 1980s, the requirement for an independent scientific review committee has been fulfilled by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Section 109(d)(2)(C) of the Act additionally requires the independent scientific review committee to advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and, advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS. To ensure this final statutory requirement is fully met, elsewhere in today's Federal Register we are issuing a call for information that would facilitate the committee's consideration of these issues.

    In its periodic review of the air quality criteria, the EPA reviews the currently available scientific information and prepares an ISA. The ISA and other key documents prepared in the review receive independent and expert scientific review by the CASAC.

    Photochemical oxidants, including O3, are one of six “criteria” pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS, and O3 is the current indicator for that NAAQS. The O3 NAAQS were most recently revised in fall of 2015. In consideration of the statutory deadline for the next periodic review of the air quality criteria and standards, the EPA is accelerating initiation of the planning phase for the review, including development of the IRP for the review. The IRP will describe the overall plan for the review, outlining the anticipated schedule, process, and approaches for evaluating the relevant scientific information, as well as the key policy-relevant issues that will frame the review. We intend that the IRP will build upon key documents from the last review (available from: https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/ozone-o3-air-quality-standards). Such documents include the preamble to the final rulemaking decision, which included detailed discussions of policy-relevant issues central to that review (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015), and the Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report, Feb. 2013), EPA/600/R-10/076F. Interested parties are invited to assist the EPA by submitting information regarding significant new O3 research and policy-relevant issues for consideration in this review of the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) O3 standards.

    The EPA will consult with the CASAC on the IRP and will also solicit comments from the public. As the review proceeds, the EPA will also request CASAC review of, and provide an opportunity for public comment on, other draft documents prepared for the review, which generally include the ISA, a risk/exposure assessment (REA), as warranted, and a policy assessment (PA). The EPA intends to provide the CASAC with a standardized set of key charge questions to consider in providing advice to the Administrator throughout the entire review, supplementing these questions with more detailed requests as necessary. More information on the updated process for the forthcoming ozone NAAQS review, including statutory, standardized charge questions, is contained in the Administrator's May 9 2018 memorandum, “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 1

    1 Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/image2018-05-09-173219.pdf.

    The ISA will build on the scientific assessment for the last review,2 focusing on assessing information newly available since the 2013 ISA. With regard to development of the ISA, the public is encouraged to assist in identifying relevant scientific information for the review by submitting research studies that were not part of the prior review, and have been published or accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The Agency is interested in obtaining newly available information, particularly concerning toxicological studies of effects of controlled exposure to O3 on laboratory animals, humans, and in vitro systems, as well as epidemiologic (observational) studies of health effects associated with ambient exposures of human populations to O3. The EPA also seeks recent information in other areas of O3 research such as chemistry and physics, sources and emissions, analytical methodology, transport and transformation in the environment, ambient concentrations, and effects on welfare 3 or the environment. This and other selected literature relevant to a review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS will be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming ISA. In addition to the request to submit current peer reviewed research studies, other opportunities for submission of new peer-reviewed, published (or in-press) papers will be available as part of the public comment period on the draft ISA that will be reviewed by the CASAC.

    2 The scientific assessment for the last review is documented in the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report, Feb 2013), EPA 600/R-10/076F.

    3 Under CAA section 302(h), effects on welfare include, but are not limited to, “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and wellbeing.”

    II. How To Submit Information and Comments to the Docket at www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments and related information, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2018-0274 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the action by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    When considering submitting CBI, do not submit this information to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

    Dated: June 12, 2018. Mary Ross, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13716 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128; FRL-9979-52-ORD] Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public comment period for the draft document titled, “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria” (EPA/600/R-18/097). The draft document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as part of the review of the secondary (welfare-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter. The Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), in conjunction with additional technical and policy assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA's decisions on the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of possible alternative standards. On January 28, 2016, EPA released a separate ISA as part of an independent review for the primary (health-based) NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen (EPA/600/R-15/068). In addition, EPA also released a separate ISA to support the primary NAAQS review for oxides of sulfur (EPA/600/R-17/451, December 13, 2017), and is currently reviewing the primary and non-ecological secondary (e.g., visibility, climate, materials damage) NAAQS for particulate matter.

    EPA is releasing this draft document to seek review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public (meeting date and location to be specified in a separate Federal Register notice). This draft document is not final, as described in EPA's information quality guidelines, and it does not represent, and should not be construed to represent, Agency policy or views. When revising the document, EPA will consider any public comments submitted during the public comment period specified in this notice.

    DATES:

    The public comment period begins on June 26, 2018 and ends on September 4, 2018. Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria” will be available primarily via the internet on EPA's Integrated Science Assessment home page at https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-oxides-nitrogen-and-sulfur-ecological or the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128. A limited number of CD-ROM copies will be available. Contact Ms. Marieka Boyd by phone: 919-541-0031; fax: 919-541-5078; or email: [email protected] to request a CD-ROM, and please provide your name, your mailing address, and the document title, “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria” to facilitate processing of your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the public comment period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; phone: 202-566-1752; fax: 202-566-9744; or email: [email protected]

    For technical information, contact Dr. Tara Greaver, NCEA; phone: 919-541-2435; fax: 919-541-1818; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to identify certain pollutants which, among other things, “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .” Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish NAAQS for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. EPA is also required to review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS (for more information on the NAAQS review process, see https://www.epa.gov/naaqs).

    Oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter are three of six criteria pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an ISA (formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document). The ISA, in conjunction with additional technical and policy assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA's decisions on the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of possible alternative standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent science advisory committee whose review and advisory functions are mandated by Section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, is charged (among other things) with independent scientific review of the EPA's air quality criteria.

    On August 21, 2013 (78 FR 53452), EPA formally initiated its current review of the air quality criteria for the ecological effects of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur, and the associated secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS, requesting the submission of recent scientific information on specified topics. Similarly, on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71764), EPA formally initiated its current review of the air quality criteria for the particulate matter NAAQS. EPA conducted two workshops—the first on March 4 to 6, 2014 for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur (79 FR 8644, February 13, 2014), and the second on February 11, 2015 (79 FR 71764, December 3, 2014) for particulate matter—to gather input from invited scientific experts, both internal and external to EPA, as well as from the public, regarding key science and policy issues relevant to the review of the these secondary NAAQS. Teleconference workshops with invited scientific experts, both internal and external to EPA, were held on August 25, 26, and 27, 2015 (80 FR 48316, August 12, 2015) and June 13, 2016 (81 FR 89262, May 11, 2016), to discuss initial draft materials prepared in the development of the draft ISA.

    These science and policy issues were incorporated into EPA's “Draft Integrated Review Plan for the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur” as well as the “Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.” The Draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur was available for public comment (80 FR 69220, Monday, November 9, 2015) and discussion by the CASAC via publicly accessible teleconference consultation (80 FR 65223, February 10, 2016). The Draft IRP for particulate matter was available for public comment (81 FR 2297, April 19, 2016) and discussion by the CASAC via publicly accessible teleconference consultation (81 FR 13362, March 14, 2016) prior to release of the final document (81 FR 87933, December 6, 2016). The “First External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria” was available for public comment (82 FR 15703, March 30, 2017) and discussed by CASAC and the public (82 FR 15701, March 30, 2017).

    The “Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter—Ecological Criteria” will be discussed at a public meeting for review by CASAC and the public. In addition to the public comment period announced in this notice, the public will have an opportunity to address the CASAC. A separate Federal Register notice will inform the public of the exact date and time of the CASAC meeting and of the procedures for public participation.

    II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128, by one of the following method 2nds:

    www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 202-566-9744.

    Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752.

    Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.

    The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The phone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will be marked “late,” and may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically on www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: June 11, 2018. Mary A. Ross, Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13713 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking, which will be held in Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues that have particular impact on small community banks throughout the United States and the local communities they serve, with a focus on rural areas.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, July 11, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the FDIC Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The agenda will include a discussion of current issues affecting community banking. The agenda is subject to change. Any changes to the agenda will be announced at the beginning of the meeting.

    Type of Meeting: The meeting will be open to the public, limited only by the space available on a first-come, first-served basis. For security reasons, members of the public will be subject to security screening procedures and must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees needing such assistance should call (703) 562-6067 (Voice or TTY) at least two days before the meeting to make necessary arrangements. Written statements may be filed with the committee before or after the meeting. This meeting of the Advisory Committee on Community Banking will be Webcast live via the internet http://fdic.windrosemedia.com. Questions or troubleshooting help can be found at the same link. For optimal viewing, a high-speed internet connection is recommended. Further, a video of the meeting will be available on-demand approximately two weeks after the event.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13642 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreement are available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 201217-003.

    Title: Port of Long Beach Data Services Agreement.

    Parties: Port of Long Beach; PierPass LLC; LBCT LLC; SSA Terminals (Pier A), LLC; International Transportation Service, Inc.; Pacific Maritime Services, L.L.C.; SSA Terminals, LLC; and Total Terminals International, LLC.

    Filing Party: Jeff Vogel; Cozen O'Connor.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds related provisions regarding the Port Drayage Truck Registry, extends the Agreement through July 1, 2021, and makes corrections to the names and addresses of some of the parties and administrative personnel. The parties request expedited review.

    Agreement No.: 011279-030.

    Title: Latin America Agreement.

    Parties: Central America Discussion Agreement; Caribbean Shipowners Association; ABC Discussion Agreement; West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes the Venezuelan Discussion Agreement and Libra as parties and corrects the addresses of the remaining parties to the Agreement.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. JoAnne D. O'Bryant, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13729 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Emergency Review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

    Title: Information Collection for HHS Certification of Foreign Adult Victims of Human Trafficking.

    OMB No.: 0970-0454.

    Description: The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Public Law 106-386 (TVPA) requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to certify adult alien (“foreign”) victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons (“human trafficking”) who are willing to assist law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking, unless unable to cooperate due to physical or psychological trauma, and who have either made a bona fide application for T nonimmigrant status that has not been denied or been granted Continued Presence (CP) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) within the HHS Administration for Children and Families issues HHS Certification Letters that grant adult foreign victims of human trafficking eligibility for federal and state benefits and services to the same extent as refugees.

    In general, OTIP initiates the certification process when it receives a notice from DHS that DHS has granted a foreign victim of trafficking CP or T nonimmigrant status, or has determined an application for T nonimmigrant status is bona fide. To issue HHS Certification Letters, it is necessary for OTIP to collect information from a victim, or a victim's representative, such as an attorney, case manager, or law enforcement victim specialist, including an address to send the HHS Certification Letter.

    OTIP will ask if the victim is in need of case management services and the current location (city, state) of the victim, and refer the victim to an appropriate service provider in his or her area, if requested. OTIP will also ask about the victim's primary language and urgent concerns, such as medical care or housing, and transmit this information to the service provider with the victim's consent.

    Finally, OTIP reports information on victim certification to provide to Congress in an annual report on U.S. Government activities to combat trafficking that is prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice. Congress requires HHS and other appropriate Federal agencies to report information on the number of persons who received benefits or other services under subsections (b) and (f) of section 7105 of Title 22 of the U.S. Code in connection with programs or activities funded or administered by HHS. HHS may include in these annual reports additional aggregate information that it collects about the victims when assisting each victim to obtain HHS Certification.

    OTIP developed the form to facilitate the submission of consistent information and improve program reporting. The trafficking victim or his or her representative may submit the completed form, which we recommend be done via password-protected email or encryption, to OTIP for the purpose of issuing a Certification Letter. OTIP will store this information in OTIP's secure database for no longer than 10 years, at which time it will be destroyed, unless required for business use by HHS. Other details maintained in the victim's file may include OTIP staff actions, referrals, and notes regarding the victim's interest in receiving services. Maintaining victim records within OTIP's database will ensure efficient service delivery for victims, allow OTIP staff to track victims' progress toward certification, verify eligibility for benefits, and organize information for reporting aggregate data to Congress.

    Respondents: Nongovernmental entities providing social or legal services, or victim/survivors of trafficking may use this form to submit a request for certification. The use of this form is optional; the victim or his/her representative has the option to make a request for certification via telephone or email.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • HHS Certification Instrument 800 1 .5 400

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.

    Additional Information: ACF is requesting that OMB grant a 180 day approval for this information collection under procedures for emergency processing by JUNE 22, 2018. A copy of this information collection, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Administration for Children and Families, Reports Clearance Officer, Robert Sargis at (202) 690-7275.

    Comments and questions about the information collection described above should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACF, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; FAX: (202) 395-7285; email: [email protected]

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13604 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-47-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1073] Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on July 12, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1073. The docket will close on July 11, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by July 11, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 11, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 11, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before July 2, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1073 for “Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify the information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 210795, tafenoquine tablet, 150 milligram, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Ltd., England, for the proposed indication of the radical cure (prevention of relapse) of Plasmodium vivax malaria.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before July 2, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June 26, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 27, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13710 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1073] Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on July 26, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2018-N-1073. The docket will close on July 25, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by July 25, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 25, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Comments received on or before July 12, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1073 for “Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see the ADDRESSES section), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify the information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 210607, tafenoquine tablet, 100 milligram (mg), sponsored by 60 Degrees Pharmaceuticals, LLC, for the proposed indication of prevention of malaria in adults for up to 6 months of continuous dosing.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see the ADDRESSES section) on or before July 12, 2018, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before July 3, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by July 5, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at [email protected] or 301-796-4540.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13711 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6209] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry: Assessing User Fees Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by July 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, Fax: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0718. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Domini Bean, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-5733, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Guidance for Industry: Assessing User Fees Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017 OMB Control Number 0910-0718—Revision

    This information collection supports the above captioned Agency guidance and implementation of the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017 (BsUFA II). Under BsUFA II, FDA's authority is extended to collect user fees from fiscal years 2018-2022 and includes a number of technical revisions that affect what fees and how fees are collected. Fees authorized by this legislation help fund the review process for biosimilar biological product applications and play an important role in expediting the review and approval process.

    We have developed the guidance document entitled “Assessing User Fees Under the Biosimilar User Fee Amendments of 2017” to assist industry in understanding when these fees are incurred and the process by which applicants can submit payments. The guidance also provides information on the consequences of failing to pay BsUFA II fees, as well as processes for submitting reconsideration and appeal requests. The guidance document is available on our website at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM584984.pdf.

    In the Federal Register of November 16, 2017 (82 FR 53505), we published a notice announcing availability of the subject guidance document, including a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection. One comment was received in response to the notice from a trade organization indicating that interested persons “have reviewed the draft guidance and appreciate(s) FDA applying the user fee provisions consistent with the BsUFA II negotiations and Commitment Letter.” In addition, and upon our own review, we believe it is appropriate to include the guidance document under the existing information collection “Biosimilar User Fee Cover Sheet” currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0718 rather than to establish a new collection. FDA is preparing to renew OMB control number 0910-0718 and will include the guidance document accordingly.

    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total hours
    Request for discontinuation from biological product development program 2 1 2 1 2 Request to move products to discontinued section of the biosimilar list 5 1 5 * 0.5 2.5 Small business waiver of the BsUFA application fee 1 1 1 16 16 Small business waiver reconsiderations 1 1 1 24 24 Small business waiver appeals 1 1 1 12 12 Annual Fee Determination Survey 35 1 35 1 35 Annual BsUFA Fees Correspondence 35 1 35 2 70 Total 161.5 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. * 30 minutes.

    Our estimate is based on the number of Biosimilars User Fee submissions we have received since establishing the program.

    Dated: June 21, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13688 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of HHS is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions and the Program in general, contact Lisa L. Reyes, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our website at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the United States Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of HHS, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on May 1, 2018, through May 31, 2018. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

    2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

    a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the table, or

    b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of HHS) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. George Sigounas, Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Emily Jahn, Millbury, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0613V 2. Kathy Macaluso, Naples, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0614V 3. Jason Fey and Heather Fey on behalf of E.P.F., Hudson, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0615V 4. Jeanne Rudzki, Jefferson, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0617V 5. Michael Schwarz, Walla Walla, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0619V 6. Ernest Perkins, Salt Lake City, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0620V 7. Sally Musulin, Cranberry, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0621V 8. Katherine L. Alberino, Medford, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0622V 9. Timothy W. Massa, La Grange, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0623V 10. Joseph Davis, Auburn, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0624V 11. Tesalia Lyons on behalf of G.L., Douglasville, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0625V 12. Matthew T. Manley, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0626V 13. Sherri Paige, Willimantic, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0627V 14. Marie Aagotnes, New York, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0631V 15. Arthur Renfro, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0632V 16. Thomas D. Taylor, Purcellville, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0633V 17. Alia J. Stone, Columbus, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0634V 18. Carrine Paulen, Big Rapids, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0635V 19. Lovely Varughese, Des Plaines, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0637V 20. Melissa K. Woinarowicz, Karlstad, Minnesota, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0639V 21. Adam Crispo, Jersey City, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0640V 22. Cynthia Peterson, Bronx, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0641V 23. Debra Juno, Yardley, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0643V 24. Fawne Adams, Frederick, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0644V 25. Juliet Ley, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0645V 26. Keria Edwards, Toledo, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0646V 27. Frankie Reese, Hickory, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0647V 28. Dana Ochsner, Olympia, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0648V 29. Kimberly J. Little, Rochester, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0649V 30. Mary Stewart, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0650V 31. Ida E. Sondy, Mountain Home, Arkansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0651V 32. Jill Corsiglia, Aptos, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0652V 33. Helen Kearns, Clinton, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0654V 34. Beverly Schick-Cowell, Sylvania, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0656V 35. Sue Ann Chamberlain, Pleasant Grove, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0658V 36. Judy Welch, Lapeer, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0660V 37. Brent Pyles, Georgetown, Kentucky, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0662V 38. Kristina Link, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0663V 39. Brooke Konsky, Newark, Delaware, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0666V 40. Heather Sheehan, Madison, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0668V 41. Linda Serra, Springfield, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0672V 42. Paula Rosselet, Spokane, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0674V 43. Bradley Haag, Pickering, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0675V 44. Marian Williams, Jacksonville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0676V 45. Douglas Billing, Wichita Falls, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0679V 46. Cecelia Keller, Upland, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0680V 47. David Christian Kunz, Nibley, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0681V 48. Merrick Brunker, Ventura, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0683V 49. Bonnie Mahayni, Midlothian, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0684V 50. Elizabeth Tregillus, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0688V 51. Jeffrey Strain, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0689V 52. Maria Turkson, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0690V 53. Laura Guerrie, Tujunga, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0692V 54. Flint Allen, Hill City, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0693V 55. Chad Sheller on behalf of Daniel E. Sheller, Deceased, Santa Maria, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0696V 56. Lari Talbert, Shreveport, Louisiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0699V 57. Robert G. Baker, Rock Hill, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0701V 58. Randy Leblanc, Salt Lake City, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0702V 59. Jill Longworth, St. Louis, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0703V 60. Kevin Radford, Alpharetta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0704V 61. Judith Bohnenkamp, O'Fallon, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0709V 62. Gerard L. Muensterman on behalf of Cletus J. Muensterman, Deceased, Evansville, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0714V 63. Claudette Guerrero, Edinburg, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0716V 64. Sheila Chille, Niagara Falls, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0718V 65. Alice Lawler, Oak Harbor, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0719V 66. Patricia Wright, La Marque, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0720V 67. Gerald Jansen, Newport, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0722V 68. Bethanne Hull, Titusville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0723V 69. Sheena Schmacht on behalf of H.S., Silvis, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0724V 70. David M. Roberts, Sioux City, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0725V 71. Judith A. Bridges, St. Charles, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0726V 72. Barbara Murray, Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0728V 73. Vicki Havel, Rockwall, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0729V 74. Silvia Hernandez, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0731V 75. Charles Williams, Oroville, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0732V 76. James Seylaz, Bridgewater, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0733V 77. Laurel Ostiguy, Marlborough, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0736V 78. Kathleen Spain, Las Vegas, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0737V 79. Staci McTeigue, Alpharetta, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0740V 80. Jackie Johns, Marshfield, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0741V 81. Erica Schofield, Missoula, Montana, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0742V 82. Rocco E. Moat, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0743V 83. Raymond Spornhauer, Lufkin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0744V 84. Janice Hodgett, Kewanee, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0745V 85. Carol D'Angelo, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0747V 86. Cami Perry, Aurora, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0748V 87. Carol Vorwerck, Towson, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0749V 88. Georgia Derr on behalf of M.D., Harrisburg, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0751V 89. Sheri Henning, Owasso, Oklahoma, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0752V 90. Patricia Gauthier, Tonasket, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0753V 91. Roderick Sanders, Conyers, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0754V 92. Derek Grace, Dayton, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0757V 93. Sarah Flores and Ryan C. Flores on behalf of M.F., Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0759V 94. David Daniel, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0760V 95. Raymond Bielak, St. George, Utah, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0761V 96. Tori Dreyer, Topeka, Kansas, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0764V 97. Mark D. Scarlette, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0766V 98. James Louis, Lisbon, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0767V 99. Dayane Penderis, Pasadena, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0768V 100. Kathleen Cooper-Loher, Marshfield, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0769V 101. Kerstina Alexander on behalf of M.A., Deceased, Woodbridge, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0770V 102. Henry Milligan, Jr., Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0771V 103. Cheryl Thompson, South Bend, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0772V 104. Olivia Gallegos, Fresno, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0773V 105. Jacie Albanez and Mario Albanez on behalf of N.A., San Diego, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0774V 106. Scott Kelbick, Avondale, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0775V 107. Elizabeth Phenneger, Spokane, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 18-0776V
    [FR Doc. 2018-13593 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Proposed Standards for the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program's Quality Bonus System AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Final response.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA published a notice in the Federal Register on October 11, 2017, soliciting feedback on the establishment of the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment (CHGME) Program's Quality Bonus System (QBS). In particular, HRSA requested feedback on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and beyond multi-step implementation of the system, including demonstration of engagement in state or regional-level initiatives, documentation, and payment structure. This notice summarizes and responds to the comments received during the 60-day comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Additional information about the CHGME is available at https://bhw.hrsa.gov/grants/medicine/chgme.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malena Crawford, Project Officer, Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program, Division of Medicine and Dentistry, HRSA at [email protected] or (301) 443-7334.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CHGME statute was amended in 2013. The amendments permit up to 25 percent of the total amount appropriated annually in excess of $245 million, but not to exceed $7,000,000, to provide payments to newly qualified hospitals, as defined in section 340E(h) of the Public Health Service Act. The statute additionally states that the Secretary may establish a quality bonus system for CHGME hospitals using any remaining funds after payments are made to newly qualified hospitals. In FY 2018, Congress appropriated $315 million to the CHGME Program