Federal Register Vol. 83, No.136,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 136 (July 16, 2018)

Page Range32759-33117
FR Document

83_FR_136
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 33115 - Establishment of the Task Force on Market Integrity and Consumer FraudPDF
83 FR 32932 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 32911 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
83 FR 32833 - Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, Including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive Parts; Change of Date for the Public HearingPDF
83 FR 32903 - Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251PDF
83 FR 32897 - Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region-Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251PDF
83 FR 32932 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC to List and Trade on the Exchange Options on the SPIKESTMPDF
83 FR 32909 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 32945 - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement-Natural Resource PlanPDF
83 FR 32807 - Yaw Maneuver Conditions-Rudder ReversalsPDF
83 FR 32884 - Declaration Regarding Emergency Use of Treatment for Uncontrolled Hemorrhage Due to Agents of Military CombatPDF
83 FR 32950 - Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information Collection: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on SafetyPDF
83 FR 32847 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Magnet Schools Assistance Program-Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Table FormPDF
83 FR 32875 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 32874 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 32825 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 32798 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 32945 - Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Walker County, Ga.; Chattooga & Chickamauga Railway Company-Discontinuance of Lease and Trackage Rights Operations-in Walker County, Ga. and Hamilton County, Tenn.PDF
83 FR 32784 - Controlled Substances QuotasPDF
83 FR 32906 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cerilliant CorporationPDF
83 FR 32905 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Siegfried USA, LLCPDF
83 FR 32840 - Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in PartPDF
83 FR 32847 - National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 32854 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Commonwealth of MassachusettsPDF
83 FR 32855 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 32896 - Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New York Bight-Call for Information and NominationsPDF
83 FR 32846 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 32886 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Human Trafficking Housing PartnershipPDF
83 FR 32888 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling Demonstration and Impact Evaluation CollectionPDF
83 FR 32887 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Congregate Housing Services ProgramPDF
83 FR 32853 - Dakota Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
83 FR 32852 - Notice of Meeting; Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LPPDF
83 FR 32852 - Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 32850 - Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 32850 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 32851 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
83 FR 32849 - California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 32850 - Big Level Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 32849 - Pratt Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 32853 - Brantley Farm Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 32851 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 32848 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 32790 - Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2018PDF
83 FR 32835 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 32833 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 32833 - Approval of Subzone Status; VF Outdoor, LLC; Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 32896 - Withdrawal of Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger TeamPDF
83 FR 32895 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index ZonePDF
83 FR 32949 - Withdrawal of Proposed Enhancements to the Safety Measurement SystemPDF
83 FR 32855 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 32885 - Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC)PDF
83 FR 32871 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
83 FR 32872 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 32805 - Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Depredation Orders for Double-Crested Cormorants To Protect Aquaculture Facilities and Public ResourcesPDF
83 FR 32912 - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1PDF
83 FR 32948 - Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Assigning Certain Federal Environmental Responsibilities to the State of Nebraska, Including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Authority for Certain Categorical Exclusions (CEs)PDF
83 FR 32891 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ArizonaPDF
83 FR 32947 - Environmental Impact Statement: Lake, Cook and McHenry Counties, IllinoisPDF
83 FR 32881 - Scientific Conference: Opioid and Nicotine Use, Dependence, and Recovery-Influences of Sex and Gender; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 32882 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other EntitiesPDF
83 FR 32878 - Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs To Treat Patients on a Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 32916 - Energy Northwest; Columbia Generating StationPDF
83 FR 32883 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff-Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation PrinciplePDF
83 FR 32880 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary SupplementsPDF
83 FR 32877 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; New Animal Drugs for Investigational UsePDF
83 FR 32953 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Use of Health CarePDF
83 FR 32954 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Notice of Lapse, Notice of Past Due PaymentPDF
83 FR 32930 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Modify the NYSE American Options Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 32929 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
83 FR 32915 - Information Collection: Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal FacilitiesPDF
83 FR 32918 - Information Collection: 10 CFR Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity AgreementsPDF
83 FR 32919 - Holtec International's HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear FuelPDF
83 FR 32926 - Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.PDF
83 FR 32842 - Current and Future Workforce Needs to Support a Strong Domestic Semiconductor IndustryPDF
83 FR 32815 - Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan SponsorsPDF
83 FR 32843 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
83 FR 32952 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement of the Department of Veterans Affairs Housing Loan ProgramPDF
83 FR 32895 - Minor Boundary Revision at Indiana Dunes National LakeshorePDF
83 FR 32759 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Series Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection-High Incidence Protection SystemPDF
83 FR 32832 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Capital Expenditures SurveyPDF
83 FR 32925 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records.PDF
83 FR 32925 - DMS ETF Trust I, et al.PDF
83 FR 32905 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Belgium, Colombia, and ThailandPDF
83 FR 32856 - Resolution Planning Guidance for Eight Large, Complex U.S. Banking OrganizationsPDF
83 FR 32894 - Notice of Realty Action; Proposed Direct Sale of Public Land, UtahPDF
83 FR 32845 - Nominations to the Marine Mammal Scientific Review GroupsPDF
83 FR 32889 - Notice of Realty Action; Proposed Modified Competitive Sale of Public Land, UtahPDF
83 FR 32892 - Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for a Park in the Northwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NevadaPDF
83 FR 32890 - Notice of Realty Action; Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Park County, WyomingPDF
83 FR 32893 - Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land in Garfield County, ColoradoPDF
83 FR 32766 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 32764 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 32829 - Request for Information on National Reform of Regional Observer Program Insurance RequirementsPDF
83 FR 32908 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection; Comments Requested: National Survey of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP)PDF
83 FR 32794 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
83 FR 32796 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; MD; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone StandardPDF
83 FR 33018 - FTA Fiscal Year 2018 Apportionments, Allocations, Program Information and GuidancePDF
83 FR 32826 - Railroad Noise Emission Compliance RegulationsPDF
83 FR 32759 - Medical Use of Byproduct Material-Medical Event; Definitions and Training and ExperiencePDF
83 FR 33046 - Medical Use of Byproduct Material-Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 32768 - Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period RequirementsPDF
83 FR 32956 - National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Conforming Changes To Reflect the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12) and the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), and Additional Clarifications for Plain LanguagePDF

Issue

83 136 Monday, July 16, 2018 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32872-32874 2018-15104 Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 32871-32872 2018-15105 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, 32832-32833 2018-15070 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32874-32875 2018-15146 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32875-32877 2018-15149 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Hearings: National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive Parts; Change of Date, 32833 2018-15193
Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32846-32847 2018-15132 Meetings: National Security Education Board, 32847 2018-15136 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Controlled Substances Quotas, 32784-32790 2018-15141 NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Siegfried USA, LLC, 32905-32906 2018-15138 Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cerilliant Corp., 32906-32908 2018-15139 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Magnet Schools Assistance Program—Government Performance and Results Act Table Form, 32847-32848 2018-15150 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Emissions Statement Requirement for 2008 Ozone Standard, 32796-32798 2018-15048 Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 32794-32796 2018-15049 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of Beloit Corp. Superfund Site, 32798-32804 2018-15144 PROPOSED RULES National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of Beloit Corp. Superfund Site, 32825-32826 2018-15145 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule, 32855 2018-15134 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 32854-32855 2018-15135 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Series Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection—High Incidence Protection System, 32759-32764 2018-15071 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 32766-32768 2018-15059 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures, 32764-32766 2018-15058 PROPOSED RULES Yaw Maneuver Conditions—Rudder Reversals, 32807-32815 2018-15154 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Guidance: Resolution Planning for Eight Large, Complex U.S. Banking Organizations, 32856-32871 2018-15066 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency PROPOSED RULES National Flood Insurance Program: Conforming Changes to Reflect Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act, and Additional Clarifications for Plain Language, 32956-33015 2018-13292 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: California Department of Water Resources, 32849 2018-15122 Dakota Natural Gas, LLC, 32853-32854 2018-15128 Combined Filings, 32848-32851 2018-15117 2018-15118 2018-15124 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Big Level Wind, LLC, 32850 2018-15121 Brantley Farm Solar, LLC, 32853 2018-15119 Pratt Wind, LLC, 32849-32850 2018-15120 Meetings: Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, 32850, 32852 2018-15125 2018-15126 2018-15127 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 32851-32852 2018-15123 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lake, Cook and McHenry Counties, IL, 32947-32948 2018-15097 Memoranda of Understanding: Certain Federal Environmental Responsibilities to State of Nebraska, Including National Environmental Policy Act Authority for Certain Categorical Exclusions, 32948-32949 2018-15099 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on Safety, 32950-32952 2018-15151 Withdrawal of Proposed Enhancements to Safety Measurement System, 32949-32950 2018-15109 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations, 32826-32829 2018-14961 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 32855-32856 2018-15108 Guidance: Resolution Planning for Eight Large, Complex U.S. Banking Organizations, 32856-32871 2018-15066 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements, 32768-32784 2018-14378 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Fiscal Year 2018 Apportionments, Allocations, Program Information and Guidance, 33018-33043 2018-14989 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Permits: Removal of Depredation Orders for Double-crested Cormorants to Protect Aquaculture Facilities and Public Resources, 32805-32806 2018-15103 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle, 32883-32884 2018-15089 Guidance for Industry on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other Entities, 32882-32883 2018-15095 New Animal Drugs for Investigational Use, 32877-32878 2018-15087 Petition to Request Exemption from 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, 32880-32881 2018-15088 Guidance: Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs to Treat Patients on Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs, 32878-32880 2018-15092 Meetings: Opioid and Nicotine Use, Dependence, and Recovery—Influences of Sex and Gender; Scientific Conference, 32881-32882 2018-15096 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Status; Approvals: VF Outdoor, LLC Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, CA, 32833 2018-15113 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

NOTICES Emergency Use of Treatment for Uncontrolled Hemorrhage Due to Agents of Military Combat, 32884-32885 2018-15152
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2018, 32790-32794 2018-15116 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Congregate Housing Services Program, 32887-32888 2018-15129 Human Trafficking Housing Partnership, 32886-32887 2018-15131 Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling Demonstration and Impact Evaluation, 32888-32889 2018-15130 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Republic of Korea, 32840-32842 2018-15137 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 32835-32840 2018-15115 Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 32833-32835 2018-15114 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand, 32905 2018-15067 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Survey of Victim Service Providers, 32908-32909 2018-15056
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Surveys: Arizona, 32891-32892 2018-15098 Realty Actions: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for Park in Northwest Portion of Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, NV, 32892-32893 2018-15062 Direct Sale of Public Land in Garfield County, CO, 32893-32894 2018-15060 Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Park County, Wyoming, 32890-32891 2018-15061 Proposed Direct Sale of Public Land, Utah, 32894-32895 2018-15065 Proposed Modified Competitive Sale of Public Land, Utah, 32889-32890 2018-15063 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32909-32911 2018-15175 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Requests for Information: Current and Future Workforce Needs to Support Strong Domestic Semiconductor Industry, 32842-32843 2018-15077 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Regional Observer Program Insurance Requirements, 32829-32831 2018-15057 NOTICES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands; Exempted Fishing Permit, 32843-32845 2018-15074 Requests for Nominations: Marine Mammal Scientific Review Groups, 32845-32846 2018-15064 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Minor Boundary Revisions: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 32895 2018-15072 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32911-32912 2018-15229 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Medical Use of Byproduct Material: Medical Event Definitions and Training and Experience, 32759 2018-14853 Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments, 33046-33112 2018-14852 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Criteria and Procedures for Emergency Access to Non-Federal and Regional Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities, 32915-32916 2018-15081 Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements, 32918-32919 2018-15080 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station, 32916-32918 2018-15091 License Amendments: Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 32912-32915 2018-15100 License Applications: Holtec International's HI-STORE Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, 32919-32925 2018-15079 Occupational Safety Health Rev Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 32925 2018-15069 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region-Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251, 32897-32903 2018-15180 Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251, 32903-32905 2018-15181 Requests for Information and Nominations: Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New York Bight, 32896-32897 2018-15133 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with Index Zones: Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments, 32895-32896 2018-15111 Withdrawal of Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger Team, 32896 2018-15112 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation PROPOSED RULES Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors, 32815-32825 2018-15076 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Committees; Establishment, Renewal, Termination, etc.: Market Integrity and Consumer Fraud, Task Force on; Establishment (EO 13844), 33113-33117 2018-15299 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Charles Schwab and Co., Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., 32926-32929 2018-15078 DMS ETF Trust I, et al., 32925-32926 2018-15068 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32932 2018-15233 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 32932-32944 2018-15178 NYSE American, LLC, 32930-32932 2018-15083 NYSE Arca, Inc., 32929-32930 2018-15082 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuances of Service Exemptions: Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia Railway Co.; Walker County, GA, 32945 2018-15142 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Natural Resource Plan, 32945-32947 2018-15161 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, 32885-32886 2018-15107 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notice of Lapse, Notice of Past Due Payment, 32954 2018-15084 Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Use of Health Care, 32953-32954 2018-15085 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Housing Loan Program, 32952-32953 2018-15073 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Homeland Security Department, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 32956-33015 2018-13292 Part III Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, 33018-33043 2018-14989 Part IV Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 33046-33112 2018-14852 Part V Presidential Documents, 33113-33117 2018-15299 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.

83 136 Monday, July 16, 2018 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, and 35 [NRC-2014-0030] RIN 3150-AI63 Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Event; Definitions and Training and Experience AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final guidance; issuance.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a final guidance document entitled, “Final Guidance for the Rule `Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Events Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments.' ” This guidance document addresses implementation of the NRC's final rule amending its medical use of byproduct material regulations which is being published concurrently in Separate Part IV of this issue of the Federal Register.

DATES:

The guidance document is available on July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0030 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0030. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The final guidance document is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18176A377.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna-Beth Howe, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5441; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NRC published the draft guidance document in the Federal Register on July 21, 2014 (79 FR 42224). The NRC received seven comments on the draft guidance. The NRC's response to the public comments received can be found in the fourth section of the final guidance. The guidance document is for use by applicants, licensees, Agreement States, and the NRC staff. This guidance document (ADAMS Accession No. ML18176A377) has four parts: the first two are revisions to existing information in the NUREG-1556, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses,” series of volumes for medical uses (Volume 9) and commercial nuclear pharmacies (Volume 13); the third part is a series of questions and answers to assist applicants and licensees in understanding and implementing the new regulatory changes; and the fourth is the comments received on the proposed guidance during the public comment period, and the NRC's responses. The current NUREG-1556 documents provide guidance to applicants for the completion and submission of materials license applications to the NRC. The documents also include model procedures that an applicant may consider when developing its radiation safety program. The guidance document can be found on the NRC's Medical Uses Licensee Toolkit website (http://www.nrc.gov/materials/miau/med-use-toolkit.html).

The NRC is publishing concurrently with this guidance document the final rule, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material—Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments” (RIN 3150-AI63, NRC-2008-0175) in Separate Part IV of this issue of the Federal Register. In conjunction with the final rule, the NRC developed this final guidance document which provides guidance to licensees and applicants for implementing the revisions in the final rule.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel S. Collins, Director, Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2018-14853 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0310; Special Conditions No. 25-732-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Series Airplanes; Flight Envelope Protection—High Incidence Protection System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G500 series airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology and design envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is a high incidence protection system that limits the angle of attack at which the airplane can be flown during normal low speed operation. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on July 16, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, Airframe & Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3158; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 30, 2013, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) applied for a type certificate for its new Model GVII-G500 series airplane. The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane will be a business jet with seating for up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted turbofan engines. The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane's maximum takeoff weight will be approximately 79,600 pounds.

The high incidence protection system prevents the airplane from stalling at low speeds and, therefore, a stall warning system is not needed during normal flight conditions.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 series airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-137.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A high incidence protection system, which limits the angle of attack at which the airplane can be flown during normal low speed operation, prohibits the airplane from stalling, and cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. The application of this angle of attack limit influences the stall speed determination, stall characteristics, stall warning demonstration, and longitudinal handling characteristics of the airplane. Existing airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate standards to address this feature.

Discussion

The high incidence protection system prevents the airplane from stalling at low speeds and, therefore, a stall warning system is not needed during normal flight conditions. However, during failures, which are not shown to be extremely improbable, the requirements of §§ 25.203 and 25.207 apply, although slightly modified by these conditions. If there are failures of the high incidence protection system that are not shown to be extremely improbable, the flight characteristics at the angle of attack for CLMAX must be suitable in the traditional sense, and stall warning must be provided in a conventional manner.

Part I of the special conditions is in lieu of §§ 25.21(b), 25.103, 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), 25.175(c) and (d), 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and 25.1323(d). Part II is in lieu of §§ 25.21(g)(1), 25.105(a)(2)(i), 25.107(c) and (g), 25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(d)(2)(ii), 25.123(b)(2)(i), 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B), and 25.143(j).

These special conditions address this novel or unusual design feature on the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane, and contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

These special conditions are different from special conditions previously issued on this topic. In Part I, sections 3.b.iv, 3.b.vi, 3.e.vi, 5.a.i.1, 5.a.i.4, 5.a.i.6, 5.a.i.7, 5.c.i.4, 5.c.i.5, 5.c.i.6, 5.c.ii.4, and 5.c.ii.5, previously used verbiage was updated to reflect language recommended in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG) Phase 2 report. This language more accurately describes the actions required and formulas to be used to obtain the required result. In Part I, sections 3.b.ii and 5.a.ii.4, the ARAC FTHWG language was adapted to reflect specific Gulfstream design features.

In several previous special conditions on this subject, we used the nomenclature VCLMAX. To avoid confusion with previous Gulfstream special conditions, we have changed the nomenclature to VCLMAX Demo to highlight a difference. The difference is not significant, but the change in nomenclature was considered clarifying and therefore was adopted in this instance.

Discussion of Comments

The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-18-02-SC for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22214). The FAA received one comment that was not relevant to the subject of these special conditions. Therefore, the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, as the certification date for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 series airplanes. Part I: Stall Protection and Scheduled Operating Speeds

In the following sections, “in icing conditions,” means with ice accretions (relative to the relevant flight phase) as defined in appendix C to part 25, at amendment 25-121.

1. Definitions

These special conditions use terminology that does not appear in 14 CFR part 25. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following terms describe certain aspects of this novel or unusual design feature:

High-Incidence Protection System

A system that operates directly and automatically on the airplane's flight controls to limit the maximum angle of attack that can be attained to a value below that at which an aerodynamic stall would occur.

Alpha-Limit

The maximum angle of attack at which an airplane stabilizes with the high incidence protection system operating and the longitudinal control held on its aft stop.

VMIN

The minimum steady flight speed in the airplane's configuration under consideration with the high incidence protection system operating. See Part I, Section 3, “Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed,” of these special conditions.

VMIN1g

VMIN corrected to 1g acceleration of gravity conditions. See Part I, Section 3, “Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed,” of these special conditions. This is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for VMIN.

2. Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System

The applicant must establish the capability and reliability of the high incidence protection system. The applicant may establish this capability and reliability by flight testing, simulation, or analysis as appropriate. The capability and reliability required are:

a. It must not be possible to encounter a stall during the pilot-induced maneuvers required by Part I, section 5(a), “High Incidence Handling Demonstrations,” and the handling characteristics must be acceptable as required by Part I, section 5(b), “Characteristics in High Incidence Maneuvers” of these special conditions;

b. The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the effects of wind shears and gusts at low speeds as required by Section 6, “Atmospheric Disturbances” of these special conditions;

c. The ability of the high incidence protection system to accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence must be verified in icing conditions;

d. The high incidence protection system must be provided in each abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in flight following system failures; and

e. The reliability of the system and the effects of failures must be acceptable in accordance with § 25.1309.

3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed

In lieu of § 25.103, “Stall speed,” the following applies:

a. The minimum steady flight speed, VMIN, is the final, stabilized, calibrated airspeed obtained when an airplane is decelerated until the longitudinal control is on its stop in such a way that the entry rate does not exceed 1 knot per second.

b. The minimum steady flight speed, VMIN, must be determined in icing and non-icing conditions with:

i. The high incidence protection system operating normally;

ii. Idle thrust;

iii. All combinations of flap settings and landing gear positions for which VMIN is required to be determined;

iv. The weight used when the reference stall speed, VSR, is used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard;

v. The most unfavorable center of gravity (CG) allowable; and

vi. The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13 VSR and not greater than 1.3 VSR.

c. The 1g minimum steady flight speed, VMIN1g, is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which an airplane can develop a lift force (normal to the flight path) equal to its weight, while at an angle of attack not greater than that at which the minimum steady flight speed referenced in section 3(a) of this special condition is determined. These minimum calibrated airspeeds must be determined for both icing and non-icing conditions.

d. The reference stall speed, VSR, is a calibrated airspeed defined by the applicant. VSR may not be less than a 1g stall speed. VSR must be determined in non-icing conditions and expressed as:

ER16JY18.012 Where: VCLMAX Demo = Demonstrated calibrated airspeed obtained when the corrected lift coefficient of the load factor ER16JY18.013   is first a maximum during the maneuver   prescribed in section 3(e)(viii) of this   special condition. nZW = Load factor normal to the flight path at VCLMAX Demo W = Airplane gross weight; S = Aerodynamic reference wing area; and q = Dynamic pressure.

e. VCLMAX Demo is determined in non-icing conditions with:

i. Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the stall speed;

ii. The airplane in other respects (such as flaps and landing gear) in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which VSR is being used;

iii. The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard;

iv. The CG position that results in the highest value of the reference stall speed;

v. The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13 VSR and not greater than 1.3 VSR;

vi. At the option of the applicant, the high incidence protection system can be disabled or adjusted to allow full development of the maneuver to the angle of attack corresponding to VSR; and

vii. Starting from the stabilized trim condition, with an application of the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second.

4. Stall Warning

In lieu of § 25.207, the following apply:

a. Normal Operation

If the design meets all conditions of Part I, section 2 of these special conditions, then the airplane need not provide stall warning during normal operation. The conditions of Part I, section 2 provide a level of safety equal to the intent of § 25.207, “Stall warning,” so the provision of an additional, unique warning device for normal operations is not required.

b. High Incidence Protection System Failure

For any failures of the high incidence protection system that the applicant cannot show to be extremely improbable, and that result in the capability of the system no longer satisfying any part of sections 2(a), (b), and (c) of Part I of these special conditions: The design must provide stall warning that protects against encountering unacceptable characteristics and against encountering stall.

i. This stall warning, with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position, must be clear and distinctive to the pilot, and must meet the requirements specified in sections 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(v) of Part I of these special conditions.

ii. The design must also provide this stall warning in each abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in flight following system failures.

iii. The design may furnish this stall warning either through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will provide clearly distinguishable indications to the flightcrew under all expected conditions of flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the flightcrew within the flight deck is not acceptable by itself. If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the airplane configurations prescribed in section 4(b)(i), above, and for the conditions prescribed in sections 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(v) of part I of these special conditions.

iv. In non-icing conditions, the stall warning must provide sufficient margin to prevent encountering unacceptable characteristics and encountering stall in the following conditions:

1. In power-off straight deceleration not exceeding 1 knot per second to a speed of 5 knots or 5 percent calibrated airspeed (CAS), whichever is greater, below the warning onset; and

2. In turning flight, stall deceleration at entry rates up to 3 knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than 1 second after the warning onset.

v. In icing conditions, the stall warning must provide sufficient margin to prevent encountering unacceptable characteristics and encountering stall in power-off straight and turning flight decelerations not exceeding 1 knot per second, when the pilot starts a recovery maneuver not less than three seconds after the onset of stall warning.

vi. An airplane is considered stalled when the behavior of the airplane gives the pilot a clear, distinctive, and acceptable indication that the airplane is stalled. Acceptable indications of a stall, occurring either individually or in combination, are:

1. A nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested;

2. Buffeting of a magnitude and severity that is strong and thereby an effective deterrent to further speed reduction; or

3. The pitch control reaches the aft stop, and no further increase in pitch attitude occurs when the control is held full aft for a short time before recovery is initiated.

vii. An airplane exhibits unacceptable characteristics during straight or turning flight decelerations if it is not always possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of aileron and rudder controls, or abnormal nose-up pitching occurs.

5. Handling Characteristics at High Incidence a. High Incidence Handling Demonstrations

In lieu of § 25.201, “Stall demonstration,” the following is required:

i. Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control, in the nose-up sense, must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30-degree banked turns with:

1. The high incidence protection system operating normally;

2. Initial power conditions of:

a. Power off; and

b. Power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 VSR1, where VSR1 is the reference stall speed with flaps in approach position, landing gear retracted, and maximum landing weight;

3. None;

4. Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions not prohibited by the airplane flight manual (AFM);

5. Representative weights within the range for which certification is requested;

6. The most adverse CG for recovery; and

7. The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed prescribed in section 3(e)(v) of these special conditions.

ii. The following procedures must be used to show compliance in non-icing and icing conditions:

1. Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second until the control reaches the stop.

2. The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition, and must then be recovered by normal recovery techniques.

3. Maneuvers with increased deceleration rates:

a. In non-icing conditions, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum rate achievable.

b. In icing conditions, with the anti-ice system working normally, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to three knots per second.

4. Maneuvers with ice accretion prior to normal operation of the ice protection system:

For flight in icing conditions before the ice protection system has been activated and is performing its intended function, the handling demonstration requirements identified in section 5(a)(i) must be satisfied using the procedures specified in sections 5(a)(ii)(1) and 5(a)(ii)(2) of these special conditions. The airplane configurations required to be tested must be in accordance with the limitations and procedures for operating the ice protection system provided in the AFM, per § 25.21(g)(1), as modified by and Part II of these special conditions.

b. Characteristics in High Incidence Maneuvers

In lieu of § 25.203, “Stall characteristics,” the following apply:

i. Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30-degree banked turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:

1. There must not be any abnormal nose-up pitching;

2. There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching, which would be indicative of stall. However, reasonable attitude changes associated with stabilizing the incidence at Alpha limit, as the longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable;

3. There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion, and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control by conventional use of the controls throughout the maneuver; and

4. The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and severity that would act as a deterrent from completing the maneuver specified in section 5(a)(i) of these special conditions.

ii. In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration, some degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a transient excursion beyond the stabilized Alpha limit. However, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal control on the stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuver.

iii. It must always be possible for flightcrew to reduce incidence by conventional use of the controls.

iv. The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim speeds, associated with scheduled operating speeds such as V2 and VREF up to Alpha limit, must not be unduly damped or be significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled transport airplanes.

c. Characteristics up to the Maximum Lift Angle of Attack

In addition to the requirements in section 5(b) of this special condition, the following requirements apply:

i. In non-icing conditions, maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second, up to the angle of attack corresponding to VSR obtained using sections 3(d) and (e) of this special condition, must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30-degree banked turns in the following configurations:

1. The high incidence protection system deactivated or adjusted, at the option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the normal production system;

2. Automatic-thrust-increase system inhibited (if applicable);

3. Engines idling;

4. Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions not prohibited by the AFM;

5. The most adverse CG for recovery; and

6. The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed prescribed in section 3(e)(v) of this special condition.

ii. In icing conditions, maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second up to the maximum angle of attack reached during maneuvers from section 5(a)(ii)(3)(b) must be demonstrated in straight flight with:

1. The high incidence protection system deactivated or adjusted, at the option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the normal production system;

2. Automatic-thrust-increase system inhibited (if applicable);

3. Engines idling;

4. Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions not prohibited by the AFM;

5. The most adverse CG for recovery; and

6. The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed prescribed in section 3(e)(v) of this special condition.

iii. During the maneuvers used to show compliance with sections 5(c)(i) and 5(c)(ii) of Part I of these special conditions, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics and it must always be possible for flightcrew to reduce angle of attack by conventional use of the controls. The pilot must retain good lateral and directional control, by conventional use of the controls, throughout the maneuver.

6. Atmospheric Disturbances

Operation of the high incidence protection system must not adversely affect airplane control during expected levels of atmospheric disturbances, nor impede the application of recovery procedures in case of wind shear. This must be demonstrated in non-icing and icing conditions.

7. None 8. Proof of Compliance

Add the following requirement to that of § 25.21:

(b) The flying qualities will be evaluated at the most unfavorable CG position.

9. The Design Must Meet the Following Modified Requirements 14 CFR
  • section
  • Change
    25.145(a) “VMIN” in lieu of “stall identification.” 25.145(b)(6) “VMIN” in lieu of “VSW.” 25.175(c) and (d) “VMIN” in lieu of “VSW.” 25.1323(d) “From 1.23 VSR to VMIN” in lieu of “From 1.23 VSR to the speed at which stall warning begins;” and “speeds below VMIN” in lieu of “speeds below stall warning speed.”
    Part II: Credit for Robust Envelope Protection in Icing Conditions

    1. In lieu of § 25.21(g)(1), the following applies:

    (g) The requirements of this subpart associated with icing conditions apply only if certification for flight in icing conditions is desired. If certification for flight in icing conditions is desired, the following requirements also apply (see AC 25-25):

    (1) Each requirement of this subpart, except §§ 25.121(a), 25.123(c), 25.143(b)(1) and (b)(2), 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.207(c) and (d), and 25.251(b) through (e), must be met in icing conditions. Compliance must be shown using the ice accretions defined in appendix C to part 25, assuming normal operation of the airplane and its ice protection system in accordance with the operating limitations and operating procedures established by the applicant and provided in the airplane flight manual.

    2. In lieu of § 25.103, “Stall speed,” define the stall speed as provided in Special Conditions Part I, section 3, “Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed.

    3. In lieu of § 25.105(a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

    (2) In icing conditions, if in the configuration of § 25.121(b) with the “Takeoff Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25:

    (i) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the takeoff configuration, or

    4. In lieu of § 25.107(c) and (g), the following apply, with additional sections (c') and (g'):

    (c) In non-icing conditions, V2, in terms of calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the gradient of climb required by § 25.121(b) but may not be less than—

    1. V2MIN;

    2. VR plus the speed increment attained (in accordance with § 25.111(c)(2)) before reaching a height of 35 feet above the takeoff surface; and

    3. A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

    (c') In icing conditions with the “Takeoff Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25, V2 may not be less than—

    1. The V2 speed determined in non-icing conditions.

    2. A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

    (g) In non-icing conditions, VFTO, in terms of calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the gradient of climb required by § 25.121(c), but may not be less than—

    1. 1.18 VSR; and

    2. A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

    (g') In icing conditions with the “Final Takeoff Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25, VFTO may not be less than—

    1. The VFTO speed determined in non-icing conditions.

    2. A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

    5. In lieu of §§ 25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A), and 25.121(d)(2)(ii), the following apply:

    § 25.121 Climb: one-engine inoperative:

    (b) Takeoff; landing gear retracted. In the takeoff configuration existing at the point of the flight path at which the landing gear is fully retracted, and in the configuration used in § 25.111, but without ground effect,

    2. The requirements of subparagraph (b)(1) of this section must be met:

    (ii) In icing conditions with the “Takeoff Ice” accretion defined in appendix C of part 25, if in the configuration of § 25.121(b) with the “Takeoff Ice” accretion:

    (A) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the takeoff configuration; or

    (c) Final takeoff. In the en route configuration at the end of the takeoff path determined in accordance with § 25.111:

    2. The requirements of subparagraph (c)(1) of this section must be met:

    (ii) In icing conditions with the “Final Takeoff Ice” accretion defined in appendix C of part 25, if:

    (A) The VFTO speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the en route configuration; or

    (d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines operating procedure in which VSR for this configuration does not exceed 110 percent of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating landing configuration:

    2. The requirements of sub-paragraph (d)(1) of this section must be met:

    (ii) In icing conditions with the “Approach Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25, in a configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which VMIN1g for this configuration does not exceed 110% of the VMIN1g for the related all engines-operating landing configuration in icing, with a climb speed established with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1.4 VSR (VSR determined in non-icing conditions).

    6. In lieu of § 25.123 (b)(2)(i), the following applies:

    § 25.123 En route flight paths:

    (b) The one-engine-inoperative net flight path data must represent the actual climb performance diminished by a gradient of climb of 1.1 percent for two-engine airplanes, 1.4 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 1.6 percent for four-engine airplanes.

    2. In icing conditions with the “En route Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25 if:

    (i) The minimum en route speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the en route configuration, or

    7. In lieu of § 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B) and § 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(C), the following applies:

    § 25.125 Landing

    (b) In determining the distance in (a):

    2. A stabilized approach, with a calibrated airspeed of not less than VREF, must be maintained down to the 50-foot height.

    (ii) In icing conditions, VREF may not be less than:

    (A) The speed determined in sub-paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section;

    (B) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) with the “Landing Ice” accretion defined in appendix C to part 25.

    8. In lieu of § 25.143(j), the following applies:

    § 25.143 General

    (j) For flight in icing conditions—before the ice protection system has been activated and is performing its intended function—the following requirements apply:

    (1) If activating the ice protection system depends on the pilot seeing a specified ice accretion on a reference surface (not just the first indication of icing), the requirements of § 25.143 apply with the ice accretion defined in part II(e) of appendix C to part 25.

    (2) For other means of activating the ice protection system, it must be demonstrated in flight with the ice accretion defined in part II(e) of appendix C to part 25 that:

    (i) The airplane is controllable in a pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g load factor or lower if limited by AOA protection; and

    (ii) There is no reversal of pitch control force during a pushover maneuver down to 0.5 g load factor.

    9. In lieu of § 25.207, “Stall warning,” to read as the requirements defined in Part I of these special conditions.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 9, 2018. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15071 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31203; Amdt. No. 3808] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures 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 rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    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 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2018. John S. Duncan, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
    §§ 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]

    By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

    * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC date State City Airport FDC No. FDC date Subject 16-Aug-18 AZ Fort Huachuca Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Muni-Libby AAF 8/5934 6/20/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1B. 16-Aug-18 IA Audubon Audubon County 8/7524 6/20/18 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig. 16-Aug-18 CT Danbury Danbury Muni 8/8657 6/20/18 RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig. 16-Aug-18 CT Danbury Danbury Muni 8/8664 6/20/18 LOC RWY 8, Amdt 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15058 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31202; Amdt. No. 3807] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2018. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, 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 rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    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 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29, 2018. John S. Duncan, Executive Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 16 August 2018 Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig-B Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-A Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig-A Deland, FL, Deland Muni-Sidney H Taylor Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-A Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 2B Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-B Easton, MD, Easton/Newnam Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-B Dayton, OH, James M Cox Dayton Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 24R, Orig-C Norwalk, OH, Norwalk-Huron County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig-B Martin, SD, Martin Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1 Effective 13 September 2018 Ambler, AK, Ambler, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1A Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 3 Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 3 Galena, AK, Edward G Pitka SR, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Golovin, AK, Golovin NOME TWO, Graphic DP Golovin, AK, Golovin, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1 Golovin, AK, Golovin, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1 Golovin, AK, Golovin, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Flippin, AR, Marion County Rgnl, VOR-A, Amdt 15, CANCELED Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Pocahontas, AR, Pocahontas Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 36, Amdt 6, CANCELED Fort Huachuca/Sierra Vista, AZ, Sierra Vista Muni-Libby AAF, NDB RWY 26, Amdt 4, CANCELED San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, ILS OR LOC Z RWY 6, Amdt 3 San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, LOC Y RWY 6, Amdt 1 San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6, Amdt 1 San Bernardino, CA, San Bernardino Intl, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 6, Amdt 1 Sterling, CO, Sterling Muni, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 3B, CANCELED DeFuniak Springs, FL, DeFuniak Springs, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1A Immokalee, FL, Immokalee Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Albany, GA, Southwest Georgia Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 13A West Union, IA, George L Scott Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 4, CANCELED Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 12A Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 14L, Orig-B Champaign/Urbana, IL, University of Illinois-Willard, VOR RWY 22, Amdt 8A Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 20D Lawrenceville, IL, Lawrenceville-Vincennes Intl, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 1C, CANCELED Mount Carmel, IL, Mount Carmel Muni, VOR/DME RWY 22, Amdt 10A, CANCELED Anderson, IN, Anderson Muni-Darlington Field, NDB RWY 30, Amdt 8A Fort Wayne, IN, Fort Wayne Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 31A Huntington, IN, Huntington Muni, NDB RWY 9, Amdt 2, CANCELED Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18, Amdt 4 Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 3 Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1 Jeffersonville, IN, Clark Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 Richmond, IN, Richmond Muni, VOR RWY 6, Amdt 12A, CANCELED Shelbyville, IN, Shelbyville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1C Winchester, IN, Randolph County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2 Winchester, IN, Randolph County, VOR-A, Amdt 10 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Wellington, KS, Wellington Muni, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 3 Galliano, LA, South Lafourche Leonard Miller Jr, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2B Pittsfield, ME, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1 Pittsfield, ME, Pittsfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1 Escanaba, MI, Delta County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig-C Escanaba, MI, Delta County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Escanaba, MI, Delta County, VOR RWY 1, Orig-D Lapeer, MI, DuPont-Lapeer, VOR-A, Amdt 1 Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 12, CANCELED Fredericktown, MO, A Paul Vance Fredericktown Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A Vicksburg, MS, Vicksburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1B Vicksburg, MS, Vicksburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig-B Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Orig, CANCELED Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, LOC RWY 17, Orig Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig, CANCELED Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig, CANCELED Asheville, NC, Asheville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Tioga, ND, Tioga Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1 Kimball, NE, Kimball Muni/Robert E Arraj Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1C Gallup, NM, Gallup Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig-A Buffalo, NY, Buffalo Niagara Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 23, Orig-B New York, NY, Long Island Mac Arthur, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5A Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni Arpt, Tarantine Fld, VOR-A, Amdt 6, CANCELED Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10L, Amdt 1C Columbus, OH, John Glenn Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10R, Amdt 1C Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni—Jim Moore Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1A Delaware, OH, Delaware Muni—Jim Moore Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A London, OH, Madison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A London, OH, Madison County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A Mount Vernon, OH, Knox County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1C New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1 New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig New Philadelphia, OH, Harry Clever Field, VOR-A, Amdt 2B Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1A Steubenville, OH, Jefferson County Airpark, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1A Willard, OH, Willard, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Fairview, OK, Fairview Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Tahlequah, OK, Tahlequah Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A Beaver Falls, PA, Beaver County, LOC RWY 10, Amdt 4C St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, LOC RWY 28, Amdt 4D St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1D St Marys, PA, St Marys Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2A Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 2 Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 2 Cleveland, TN, Cleveland Rgnl Jetport, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Austin, TX, Austin-Bergstrom Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R SA CAT I, ILS RWY 35R SA CAT II, Amdt 4 Floydada, TX, Floydada Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1 Floydada, TX, Floydada Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1 Renton, WA, Renton Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8A Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4B Wheeling, WV, Wheeling Ohio Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1A Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 1, Amdt 1 Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 19, Amdt 2 Jackson, WY, Jackson Hole, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 1, Amdt 1
    [FR Doc. 2018-15059 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 801, 802, and 803 Premerger Notification; Reporting and Waiting Period Requirements AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is amending the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Premerger Notification Rules (the “Rules”) that require the parties to certain mergers and acquisitions to file reports with the Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission” or “FTC”) and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“the Assistant Attorney General” or “DOJ”) (together the “Antitrust Agencies” or “Agencies”) and to wait a specified period of time before consummating such transactions. The Commission is amending the Rules to make them clearer and easier to apply. The Commission is also amending the Rules to allow for the use of email in certain circumstances. Finally, the Commission is adding updated Instructions to the Premerger Notification and Report Form which include amendments for clarity and to make several non-substantive changes.

    DATES:

    Effective August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nora Whitehead, Attorney, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room 5301, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 326-3100, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act (the “Act”) requires the parties to certain mergers or acquisitions to file reports with the Commission and DOJ and wait a specified period before consummating the proposed transaction to allow the Agencies to conduct their initial review of the transaction's competitive impact. The reporting requirement and the waiting period that it triggers are intended to enable the Antitrust Agencies to determine whether a proposed merger or acquisition may violate the antitrust laws if consummated and, when appropriate, to seek a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent consummation.

    Section 7A(d)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(d)(1), directs the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, to require that premerger notification be in such form and contain such information and documentary material as may be necessary and appropriate to determine whether the proposed transaction may, if consummated, violate the antitrust laws. Section 7A(d)(2) of the Act, 15 U.S.C.

    18a(d)(2), grants the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, the authority to define the terms used in the Act and prescribe such other rules as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 7A of the Act.

    Pursuant to that authority, the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, developed the Rules, codified in 16 CFR parts 801, 802, and 803, and the Premerger Notification and Report Form (“Form”) and its associated Instructions, codified in the appendix to part 803, to govern the form of premerger notification to be provided by merging parties.

    Potential filing parties rely on the Rules to determine whether they must file under the Act and often consult the Premerger Notification Office to better understand how to apply the Rules. These changes to the Rules and Instructions address many of the questions received.

    Amendments to the Rules

    The Commission is amending the Rules, as described below, in order to clarify them and make them easier for potential filing parties to apply. The Commission is also amending the Rules to allow for the use of email in sending notice letters pursuant to 16 CFR 801.30, granting early termination, withdrawing a filing pursuant to 16 CFR 803.12, and issuing requests for additional information or documentary material (“Second Requests”).

    A. Control of a Trust

    The Commission is amending § 801.1(b)(2) to clarify the term “control” as it pertains to trusts. This change explains that a person or entity is deemed to control a trust if that person or entity has the contractual power to designate 50 percent or more of the trust's trustees, where the trust is also irrevocable and/or the settlor does not retain a reversionary interest. This revision does not alter the substance of the test, but merely aims to eliminate confusion that arises from the text as currently written.

    B. Exemption for Goods Acquired in the Ordinary Course of Business

    The Commission is amending § 802.1 to remove “realty” from the heading and introductory paragraph of the rule. Although section 7A(c)(1) of the Act exempts from the reporting requirement both goods and realty transferred in the ordinary course of business, § 802.1 addresses only the exemption of goods, and the reference to realty in the heading and introductory paragraph is misleading and confusing. Prior to 1996, § 802.1 paralleled the language of the statute, which allowed for a broad ordinary course exemption but contained no guidance on specifics. In 1996, the FTC revised and clarified the “ordinary course of business” exemption with four new rules—§ 802.1 through § 802.3 and § 802.5. With this change, § 802.1 was amended to address only the acquisition of goods in the ordinary course of business. The removal of the term “realty” from § 802.1does not affect the treatment of acquisitions of realty, which are addressed in the other regulations noted above.

    In addition, the Commission is amending example 4 to § 802.1 to clarify that the acquisition described could be exempt pursuant to § 802.2.

    C. Intraperson Transactions

    The Commission is amending § 802.30(c) to add “non-corporate interests” after assets and voting securities. This change clarifies that, in the context of a formation pursuant to § 801.40 or § 801.50, the contribution of non-corporate interests by the acquiring person to the newly formed entity, like the contribution of assets and voting securities, is exempt from the requirements of the Act as to that contributing acquiring person. This change corrects an oversight in the non-corporate rulemaking.1

    1 70 FR 11502 (Mar. 8, 2005).

    D. Entity Formation

    The Commission is amending § 802.41, Example 1, to replace the word “cash” with “assets.” In its current form, the example is confusing and misleading because the acquisition of an entity that holds only cash is not subject to notification requirements.

    E. Affidavits

    The Commission is amending § 803.5(a)(1) to clarify that the provision applies to acquisitions of non-corporate interests as well as acquisitions of voting securities. With this amendment, the Commission brings § 803.5(a)(1) into accord with the language in the rest of § 803.5 regarding the applicability of the rule to acquisitions of non-corporate interests.

    F. Withdraw and Refile Notification

    The Commission is amending § 803.12(c) to clarify that the process for withdrawing an HSR filing and resubmitting it without incurring a new filing fee is available only during the initial waiting period. Although a filing may be withdrawn at any time while the waiting period is open, pursuant to § 803.12(a), a party may refile without paying a new fee only prior to the expiration or early termination of the initial waiting period and prior to the issuance of a Second Request. This revision eliminates confusion about the availability of the withdraw and refile process.

    G. Use of Email

    The Commission makes the following amendments to allow for the use of email.

    • Section 803.5(a)(1) is amended to allow notice letters required by § 801.30 to be sent via email. The PNO has permitted notice letters to be sent via email for many years, and the Commission now formally authorizes the use of email to send notice letters pursuant to § 801.30. The Commission is also amending § 803.5(a)(1) to clarify that notice letters sent via email must be sent to the email address of an officer within the acquired issuer, such as the Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel or Secretary, or in the case of an unincorporated entity, persons exercising similar functions. Allowing notice letters to be sent via email to an appropriate person at the acquired entity will make the process of providing and receiving the notice letter required by § 801.30 more efficient for filing parties.

    • Section 803.11(c) is amended to provide that grants of early termination will become effective upon notice to the filing persons transmitted by either telephone or email. Notice by email will also serve as written confirmation. Allowing for notice of grants of early termination by email eliminates the time-intensive and inefficient process of calling each party individually and then following-up with a hard copy letter, instead combining notice and confirmation into one step.

    • Section 803.12(a) and (b) are amended to provide that a party's notification to the Agencies of its withdrawal of its premerger notification may be delivered in writing by email or mail to the Agencies.

    • Section 803.20(b) is amended to provide that a Second Request may be delivered in writing by email. Current Agency practice is to send notice via mail as well as to email the parties a Second Request within the original waiting period. In addition, the section is amended to eliminate the requirement that the full text of a Second Request will be read upon request. This amendment makes clear that email confirmation of the Second Request within the original waiting period is sufficient for the Second Request to be effective, and that email is a valid means of communication during the waiting period.

    These amendments will make the Rules easier to apply for both filing parties and the Agencies. Further, amending the Rules to allow for the use of email in sending notice letters pursuant to § 801.30, granting early termination, withdrawing a filing, and issuing Second Requests will make these processes more efficient.

    Revisions to the Instructions to the Form

    The Commission is adding updated Instructions to the Form with amendments as follows.

    Page I of the Instructions now provides an email address for the Premerger Notification Office, an updated address for DOJ's Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, and a reminder that affidavits and certifications submitted with DVD filings should be in searchable PDF format.

    Page I of the Instructions is also edited to clarify how the terms “documentary attachments,” “person filing,” “filing person,” and “ultimate parent entity” are used in the Instructions.

    Page II of the Instructions is edited to clarify that filing parties should continue to use 6- and 10-digit 2012 NAICS codes when responding to certain items in the Form, until further announcement by the Premerger Notification Office.

    Page II of the Instructions is further edited to clarify that the limitation on the acquired person's response applies to Items 5-7 of the Form.

    Page III of the Instructions is edited to indicate that there are now specific, limited criteria for fee payment via certified check.

    Page IV of the Instructions is edited to remove references to fax numbers.

    Page V of the Instructions is edited to clarify that it is not necessary to list all subsidiaries wholly owned by the acquired entity in Item 3(a), and to require filing parties to provide an index of any coded names used to refer to the parties in any transaction document(s).

    Page V of the Instructions is also edited to include a list of the most common mistakes when completing the HSR Form.

    Page VI of the Instructions is edited to include additional instructions regarding the numbering and cross-referencing of Item 4(c) and 4(d) documents.

    Page VI of the Instructions is further clarified to note that any privilege log(s) should contain the names of inside and outside counsel providing privileged legal advice.

    Page IX of the Instructions is edited to note that if the acquiring person reports an associate overlap only, the acquired person need not respond to Item 7.

    Page XI of the Instructions is edited to cross-reference the regulation setting civil penalties for consummation of a reportable transaction without providing complete and proper notification.

    The footer on each page of the Instructions has been updated to reflect the date of the latest revision.

    These amendments to the Instructions, which provide additional clarity, will benefit filing parties in the preparation of the Form.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    The Commission finds good cause to adopt these changes without prior public comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), notice and comment are not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

    The Commission is amending the Rules to make them clearer and easier to apply. The Commission is also amending the Rules to allow for the use of email in certain circumstances. Finally, the Commission is amending the Instructions to the Form for clarity and to make several non-substantive changes. These amendments fall within the category of rules covering agency procedure and practice that are exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Because the amendments are not substantive in nature, they are also not subject to the delayed effective date provisions of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (substantive rules may take effect no sooner than 30 days after publication). For these reasons, the Commission finds that there is good cause for adopting this final rule as effective on August 15, 2018 without prior public comment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the agency conduct an initial and final regulatory analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the proposed amendments on small businesses, except where the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements apply, however, only to rules or amendments that are subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. Because these amendments are exempt from those APA requirements, as noted earlier, they are also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements. In any event, because of the size of the transactions necessary to invoke an HSR Filing, the premerger notification rules rarely, if ever, affect small businesses. Indeed, amendments to the Act in 2001 were intended to reduce the burden of the premerger notification program by exempting all transactions valued at less than $50 million (as adjusted annually). Further, none of the proposed rule amendments expands the coverage of the premerger notification rules in a way that would affect small business. Accordingly, to the extent, if any, that the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies, the Commission certifies that these proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This document serves as notice of this certification to the Small Business Administration.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    These changes do not contain any record maintenance, reporting or disclosure requirements that would constitute agency “collections of information” that would have to be submitted for clearance and approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Parts 801, 802, and 803

    Antitrust.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.

    For the reasons stated above, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR parts 801, 802, and 803 as set forth below:

    PART 801—COVERAGE RULES 1. The authority citation for part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 18a(d).

    2. Amend § 801.1 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 801.1 Definitions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Having the contractual power presently to designate 50 percent or more of the directors of a for-profit or not-for-profit corporation, or 50 percent or more of the trustees in the case of trusts that are irrevocable and/or in which the settlor does not retain a reversionary interest.

    PART 802—EXEMPTION RULES 3. The authority citation for part 802 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 18a(d).

    4. Amend § 802.1 by revising the section heading, introductory text, and Example 4 of paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
    § 802.1 Acquisitions of goods in the ordinary course of business.

    Pursuant to section 7A(c)(1) of the Clayton Act (the “Act”), acquisitions of goods transferred in the ordinary course of business are exempt from the notification requirements of the Act. This section identifies certain acquisitions of goods that are exempt as transfers in the ordinary course of business. This section also identifies certain acquisitions of goods that are not in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, do not qualify for the exemption.

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    Examples:

    * * *

    4. “A,” a national producer of canned fruit, preserves, jams and jellies, agrees to purchase from “B” for in excess of $50 million (as adjusted) a total of 20,000 acres of orchards and vineyards in several locations throughout the U.S. “A” plans to harvest the fruit from the acreage for use in its canning operations. The acquisition is not exempt under this section because orchards and vineyards are real property, not “goods.” If, on the other hand, “A” had contracted to acquire from “B” the fruit and grapes harvested from the orchards and vineyards, the acquisition would qualify for the exemption as an acquisition of current supplies under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Although the transfer of orchards and vineyards is not exempt under this section, the acquisition could be exempt under § 802.2(g) as an acquisition of agricultural property.

    5. Amend § 802.30 by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 802.30 Intraperson transactions.

    (c) For purposes of applying § 802.4(a) to an acquisition that may be reportable under § 801.40 or § 801.50, assets, voting securities, or non-corporate interests contributed by the acquiring person to a new entity upon its formation are assets, voting securities, or non- corporate interests whose acquisition by that acquiring person is exempt from the requirements of the Act.

    6. Amend § 802.41 by revising Example 1 to read as follows:
    § 802.41 Corporations or unincorporated entities at time of formation. Examples:

    1. Corporations A and B, each having sales of in excess of $100 million (as adjusted), each propose to contribute in excess of $50 million (as adjusted) in assets in exchange for 50 percent of the voting securities of a new corporation, N. Under this section, the new corporation need not file notification, although both A and B must do so and observe the waiting period prior to receiving any voting securities of N.

    PART 803—TRANSMITTAL RULES 7. The authority citation for part 803 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 18a(d).

    8. Amend § 803.5 by: a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1); b. Adding an example in paragraph (a)(1)(vi); and c. In paragraph (a)(2), removing “Example:” and adding in its place “Examples to paragraph (a)(2):”.

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 803.5 Affidavits Required.

    (a)(1) Section 801.30 acquisitions. For acquisitions to which § 801.30 applies, the notification required by the Act from each acquiring person shall contain an affidavit, attached to the front of the notification, or with the DVD submission, attesting that the issuer or unincorporated entity whose voting securities or non-corporate interests are to be acquired has received written notice delivered to an officer (or a person exercising similar functions in the case of an entity without officers) by email, certified or registered mail, wire, or hand delivery, at its principal executive offices, of:

    (vi) * * *

    Example to paragraph (a)(1)(vi):

    1. Company A intends to acquire voting securities of Company B. “A” sends, via email, a notice letter to a general email account, [email protected] “A” has not provided sufficient notice. Alternatively, “A” sends, via email, a notice letter to “B's” President, Jane Doe, at [email protected] “A” has provided email notice to a specific officer of “B.”

    9. Amend § 803.11 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 803.11 Termination of waiting period.

    (c) The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General may, in their discretion, terminate a waiting period upon the written request of any person filing notification or, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, sua sponte. A request for termination of the waiting period shall be sent to the offices designated in § 803.10(c). Termination shall be effective upon notice to any requesting person by either email or telephone, and such notice shall be given as soon as possible. Such notice shall be made to each person which has filed notification, and notice of termination shall be published in the Federal Register in accordance with section 7A(b)(2) of the Clayton Act (the “act”). The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General also may use other means to make the termination public, prior to publication in the Federal Register in a manner that will make the information equally accessible to all members of the public.

    10. Amend § 803.12 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 803.12 Withdraw and refile notification.

    (a) Voluntary. An acquiring person, and in the case of an acquisition to which § 801.30 does not apply, an acquired person, may withdraw its notification by notifying the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division in writing by email or mail of such withdrawal.

    (b) Upon public announcement of termination. An acquiring person's notification or, in the case of an acquisition to which § 801.30 of this chapter does not apply, an acquiring or an acquired person's notification, will be deemed to have been withdrawn if any filing that publicly announces the expiration, termination or withdrawal of a tender offer or the termination of an agreement or letter of intent is made by the acquiring person or the acquired person with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) and rules promulgated under that act. The acquiring person or acquired person must notify the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division in writing by email or mail that such filing has been made with the SEC and the withdrawal shall be deemed effective on the date of the SEC filing. Withdrawal of the HSR notification(s) shall occur even if statements are made in the SEC filing indicating a desire to recommence the tender offer or enter into a new or amended agreement or letter of intent. This paragraph is inapplicable if the initial 15-day or 30-day waiting period has expired without issuance of a request for additional information or documentary material and without an agreement in place with the Agencies to delay closing of the transaction (“a timing agreement”); or early termination of that waiting period has been granted, without a timing agreement in place; or if a request for additional information or documentary material has been issued and the Agencies have either granted early termination or allowed the extended waiting period to expire following certification of compliance without a timing agreement in place.

    (c) Resubmission without a new filing fee. (1) An acquiring person whose notification has been voluntarily withdrawn pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, or an acquiring person whose notification is deemed to have been automatically withdrawn under paragraph (b) of this section, may resubmit its notification, thereby initiating a new waiting period for the same transaction without an additional filing fee pursuant to § 803.9(f). This procedure may be used only one time, and only under the following circumstances:

    (i) The notification is withdrawn prior to the expiration or early termination of the waiting period and prior to the issuance of a request for additional information pursuant to § 803.20 and section 7A(e) of the act;

    (ii) The proposed acquisition does not change in any material way;

    (iii) The resubmitted notification is recertified, and the submission, as it relates to Items 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the Notification and Report Form, is updated to the date of the resubmission;

    (iv) A new executed affidavit is provided with the resubmitted HSR filing; and

    (v) The resubmitted notification is refiled prior to the close of the second business day after withdrawal.

    11. Amend § 803.20 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) and the example in paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 803.20 Requests for additional information or documentary material.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) In the case of a written request, upon notice of the issuance of such request to the person to which it is directed within the original 30-day (or, in the case of a cash tender offer or of an acquisition covered by 11 U.S.C. 363(b), 15-day) waiting period (or, if § 802.23 applies, such other period as that section provides), provided that written confirmation of the request is emailed or mailed to the person to which the request is directed within the original 30-day (or, in the case of a cash tender offer or of an acquisition covered by 11 U.S.C. 363(b), 15-day) waiting period (or, if § 802.23 applies, such other period as that section provides). Notice to the person to which the request is directed may be given by email, telephone or in person. The person filing notification shall keep a designated individual reasonably available during normal business hours throughout the waiting period at the email or telephone number supplied in the Notification and Report Form. Notice of a request for additional information or documentary material need be given by email or telephone only to that individual or to the individual designated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section. The written confirmation of the request shall be emailed or mailed to the ultimate parent entity of the person filing notification, or if another entity within the person filed notification pursuant to § 803.2(a), then to such entity.

    (3) Requests to natural persons. A request addressed to an individual, requiring that he or she submit additional information or documentary material, shall be transmitted to the person filing notification of which the individual is an ultimate parent entity, officer, director, partner, agent or employee, and shall be effective as to that individual when effective as to the person filing notification pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. A written copy of the request shall also be delivered to the individual by email, by hand, or by registered or certified mail at his or her home or business address.

    Example: A designee of the Federal Trade Commission sends, by email, a written request for additional information to the CEO of corporation W, the ultimate parent entity within a person that filed notification. The request is effective under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. If the email also addressed a request for documentary material to the Secretary of corporation W, a named individual, under this paragraph (b)(3), the request would likewise be effective as to the individual upon receipt of the email by corporation W. In the latter case, the Federal Trade Commission also would send a copy of the request to the Secretary of the corporation at his or her home or business address, or email.

    Appendix to Part 803 [Redesignated as Appendix A to Part 803] 12. Redesignate the appendix to part 803 as appendix A to part 803. 13. Add appendix B to part 803 to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 803—Instructions to the Notification and Report Form for Certain Mergers and Acquisitions BILLING CODE 6750-01-P ER16JY18.001 ER16JY18.002 ER16JY18.003 ER16JY18.004 ER16JY18.005 ER16JY18.006 ER16JY18.007 ER16JY18.008 ER16JY18.009 ER16JY18.010 ER16JY18.011
    [FR Doc. 2018-14378 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1303 [Docket No. DEA-480] RIN 1117-AB48 Controlled Substances Quotas AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is publishing this final rule to strengthen the process for setting controls over diversion of controlled substances and make other improvements in the quota management regulatory system for the production, manufacturing, and procurement of controlled substances.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-8953.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Legal Authority

    Provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., authorize the Attorney General to issue rules and regulations relating to registration and control of the manufacture, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances and listed chemicals. 21 U.S.C. 821. Pursuant to this authority, the Attorney General, through the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), has issued and administers regulations setting aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substances in schedules I and II, manufacturing quotas for individual manufacturers, and procurement quotas for manufacturers to produce other controlled substances or to convert the substances into dosage form. See 21 CFR part 1303.

    The current regulations, issued initially in 1971, need to be updated to reflect changes in the manufacture of controlled substances, changing patterns of substance abuse and markets in illicit drugs, and the challenges presented by the current national crisis of controlled substance abuse. This final rule modifies the regulations to strengthen controls over diversion—that is, the redirection of controlled substances which may have lawful uses into illicit channels—and makes other improvements in the controlled substance regulatory quota system.

    The quota process, in general terms, is a critical element of the Controlled Substances Act's regulatory system that seeks to prevent or limit diversion by preventing the accumulation of controlled substances in amounts exceeding legitimate need. The measures the final rule adopts to strengthen the system include authorizing the requisition from quota applicants of additional information helpful in detecting and preventing diversion, and ensuring that DEA's determinations regarding the appropriate quotas are adequately informed by input from other federal agencies, from the states, and from quota applicants.

    Section-by-Section Analysis

    The DEA is finalizing the rule as proposed without changes. Below are summaries of provisions contained in the final rule.

    Section 1303.11—Aggregate Production Quotas

    Section 1303.11 currently directs the Administrator of DEA to determine the total quantity of each basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I or II needed in the calendar year for the medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. Section 1303.11(b)(1) through (4) identifies a number of factors that are categorically to be considered in determining aggregate production quotas—relating to total net disposal, net disposal trends, inventories and inventory trends, and demand—followed by a final catchall factor, (5), regarding factors to be considered as the Administrator finds relevant.

    The final rule makes two additions to the list of factors that must regularly be considered in setting the aggregate production quotas because of their importance. First, it adds to the list the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class, which will ensure that the allowed aggregate production quota is limited to that needed to provide adequate supplies for the United States' legitimate needs. Second, the final rule amends the list of factors to be considered in establishing these quotas to include relevant information from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its components, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as well as relevant information obtained from the states. The amendment will ensure that information will be requested from the relevant HHS components and will be considered in setting the aggregate production quotas.

    The final rule provides that the Administrator will consider information from the states in setting the aggregate production quotas and make additional changes enhancing their role in § 1303.11(c). The states are critically situated to provide information about the extent of legitimate and illegitimate use of controlled substances because of their responsibilities for drug enforcement within their jurisdictions, including through the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP), their responsibilities for administration of their health care systems, and their responsibilities for dealing with the human and social costs of drug abuse and diversion. States may have relevant information indicating that individual procurement quota requests reflect quantities which will in fact be diverted to illicit use, which may in turn yield an exaggerated picture of the aggregate production quotas needed for legitimate purposes.

    The final rule accordingly includes amendments to § 1303.11(c) which provide for (i) transmitting notices of proposed aggregate production quotas, and final aggregate production quota orders, to the state attorney general, and (ii) holding a hearing if necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state's objection to a proposed aggregate production quota as excessive in relation to legitimate United States need.

    Section 1303.12—Procurement Quotas

    Section 1303.12 currently directs the Administrator to issue procurement quotas for manufacturers that use controlled substances to put them into dosage form or to make other substances. The section requires applicants for procurement quotas to state what basic class of controlled substance is needed, the purpose or purposes for which the class is desired, the quantity desired for each purpose during the next calendar year, and the quantities used and estimated to be used for each purpose during the current and preceding two calendar years. If the applicant's purpose is to manufacture another basic class of controlled substance, the applicant also must state the quantity of the other basic class that the applicant has applied to manufacture, and the quantity of the first basic class necessary to manufacture a specified quantity of the second basic class.

    The final rule amends § 1303.12(b) to clarify that the Administrator may require additional information from applicants that may help to detect or prevent diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.

    Section 1303.13—Adjustments of Aggregate Production Quotas

    Section 1303.13 authorizes the Administrator, at any time, to increase or reduce the aggregate production quotas for basic classes of controlled substances that were previously fixed pursuant to § 1303.11. The final rule in § 1303.13 parallels some of the amendments made to § 1303.11. Specifically, it includes changes in the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance among the factors to be considered in adjusting the aggregate production quota, requires transmission of adjustment notices and final adjustment orders to the state attorneys general, and provides for a hearing if necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state's objection to a proposed adjusted quota as excessive for legitimate United States need.

    Section 1303.22—Procedure for Applying for Individual Manufacturing Quotas

    The final rules amends § 1303.22 to clarify that the Administrator may require additional information from individual manufacturing quota applicants that may help to detect or prevent diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.

    Section 1303.23—Procedures for Fixing Individual Manufacturing Quotas

    The final rule amends § 1303.23 to provide that the factors the Administrator may deem relevant in fixing individual manufacturing quotas include the extent and risk of diversion of controlled substances.

    Section 1303.32—Purpose of Hearing

    The final rule includes an amendment relating to hearings in § 1303.32(a), conforming to the amendments to §§ 1303.11(c) and 1303.13(c) concerning hearings based on state objections.

    Other Matters

    In addition to the significant changes discussed above, the final rule corrects a number of typographic errors in the current regulations.

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On April 19, 2018, the DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register, which provided an opportunity for comment on the proposed rule. The comment period closed on May 4, 2018. 83 FR 17329. The DEA specifically sought comments on the provisions regarding the factors the Administrator should consider when adjusting the aggregate production quotas (21 CFR 1303.13(b)(1)), and the additional information the Administrator may require from applicants (21 CFR 1303.12(b) and 21 CFR 1303.22).

    Discussion of Comments

    DEA received a total of 1,561 written and electronic comments on the NPRM. In the NPRM, the DEA stated that some of the proposed rule's provisions relating to seeking information from other federal agencies and the states (21 CFR 1303.11(b)(6)) and those relating to the holding of hearings based on state objections (21 CFR 1303.11(c), 21 CFR 1303.13(c), and 21 CFR 1303.32(a)) were exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act as “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). However, many commenters still addressed these two issues. While the DEA appreciates the interest commenters have shown in these areas, because they were exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA, the DEA has not considered these comments in its promulgation of this final rule.

    After a review of the comments, DEA noted that there were six main issues that commenters raised, and that many commenters raised multiple issues in their comments. Each issue is summarized below, along with the DEA's responses. The DEA has also summarized the remainder of the comments which did not fit into one of the six main issues.

    A. Causes for the Increase in Opioid Deaths

    Issue: Approximately 156 commenters raised the issue that the increase in opioid deaths was due to illicitly manufactured opioids coming in from Mexico and China and errors in reporting deaths involving multiple substances, not written prescriptions for controlled substances. Advocacy groups and the general public voiced concern about the accuracy of CDC death calculations that they believe led to more strict quotas on the pain pills they need to live, instead of focusing on the issue of illicitly manufactured substances like fentanyl and heroin.

    One advocacy group noted that available data indicated that the large increase in overdose deaths was largely due to illicitly manufactured fentanyl, heroin, and synthetic opioids, not prescription opioids. The advocacy group stated that the data reinforced the need to address the growing threat posed by heroin, counterfeit fentanyl, and other counterfeit drugs.

    An association representing physicians also noted that although the rate of prescription opioid mortality continues to rise, illicit fentanyl and heroin have become the main contributors to opioid-related mortality.

    A coalition commented that a major issue with the proposed rule was that it would do nothing to solve the current opioid epidemic because illicit fentanyl and heroin cause most of the overdoses in the United States, not prescription opioids. The coalition referenced journal articles for statistics to support their argument. The coalition also noted that the vast majority of the illicit fentanyl that is arriving into the United States is coming from China through the U.S. Postal Service, and that the policies in the proposed rule would have no effect on the current number of overdose deaths.

    One law firm noted that after a re-evaluation of CDC data and DEA's own analyses, it has become evident that the current opioid “crisis” is caused by illicit synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl and deadlier fentanyl derivatives with no medical use.

    DEA Response: This final rule does not establish specific quotas. Instead, this final rule revises and improves the process for DEA to follow in gathering information and taking other actions pertaining to quotas. The CDC has acknowledged that they have a new analysis confirming recent increases in drug overdose death,1 however, as stated in the NPRM, the CDC's data will not be the only source of information the DEA will be considering. The DEA will also consider relevant information from other components of HHS, as well as relevant information from the States.

    1https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html.

    The DEA believes that the misuse of controlled prescription drugs (CPDs) is inextricably linked with the threat the United States faces from the trafficking of heroin and illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. In 2016, almost 3.4 million Americans age 12 or older reported misusing prescription pain relievers within the past month.2 Roughly 75 percent of heroin users reported nonmedical use of prescription opioids before using heroin (though the vast majority of individuals misusing opioid CPDs do not go on to use heroin).3 Many stated that they first obtained these drugs for free from the family medicine cabinet or from friends 4 but then sought street or black market drugs to maintain their addiction. This illustrates the role that CPDs have played in the opioid epidemic and underscores the continued need for robust regulatory and enforcement measures to stop diversion of CPDs. Black-market sales for opioid CPDs are typically five to ten times their retail value, and DEA intelligence reveals the “street” cost of prescription opioids steadily increases with the relative strength of the drug.

    2 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 17-5044, NSDUH Series H-52). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.

    3 Cicero TJ, Ellis MS, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP. (2014). The changing face of heroin use in the United States: A retrospective analysis of the past 50 years. JAMA Psychiatry.71(7):821-826.

    4 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. SMA 17-5044, NSDUH Series H-52). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/.

    B. The Injectable Shortage and Adjusting the Quota Process

    Issue: The DEA received 23 comments concerning how manufacturing quotas may cause a shortage of injectable opioids. Commenters were concerned that injectable opioids that are used routinely for surgeries and cancer treatment, such as injectable morphine, hydromorphone, and fentanyl would not be available to hospitals and patients. Commenters attributed the perceived shortages of these drugs to manufacturing setbacks and a government effort to restrict the amount of opioids and other pain medicines to be manufactured. Commenters stated that due to the alleged shortage of these drugs, hospitals are having a difficult time treating patients and finding alternatives for pain management.

    Many commenters stated that the DEA is focusing on the wrong issues. A majority asserted that synthetic drugs are the cause of most of the overdose opioid deaths, and that the government should focus on those synthetic drugs instead of creating regulations that they feel lead to a reduction in injectable opioids.

    Comments received from organizations and associations asserted that there is no risk of diversion for injectables. It was stated numerous times that the DEA should consider adding drug shortage information as a factor when establishing and adjusting quotas. It was also recommended that the DEA add the intent to resolve drug shortages to the relevant factors considered in adjusting quotas.

    DEA Response: The DEA is committed to ensuring that quotas are set in such a way as to grant manufacturers the ability to provide FDA-approved drug products to meet the demand of the legitimate medical, scientific, and export needs of the United States. As required in 21 U.S.C. 826(h), when there is a shortage, the DEA will “increase the aggregate and individual production quotas and any ingredients therein to the level requested.” When it is determined that the level requested is not necessary to address a shortage, the DEA provides a written response detailing the basis for the decision. 21 U.S.C. 826(h)(1)(B)(ii). Quotas granted to the dosage form manufacturers based on legitimate medical need will always be considered in the aggregate production quota. The DEA will always take into consideration any changes in market dynamics that may require allocation of individual manufacturers' quotas or revisions of the aggregate production quota. The DEA, however, cannot set quotas based on individual pharmaceutical dosage forms (21 U.S.C. 826(a)) nor can DEA compel manufacturers to manufacture specific individual pharmaceutical dosage forms even though the latter may lead to manufacturer induced shortages based on their internal business decisions. Thus, independent of DEA's adjustment of quotas, manufacturers' business decisions and manufacturing practices may lead to a shortage of certain individual pharmaceutical dosage forms, despite the adequacy of the applicable aggregate production quota.

    C. The DEA's Methodology for Quantifying Diversion

    Issue: The DEA received 16 comments regarding DEA's methodology for determining quantities of controlled substances being diverted. Three commenters recommended that the DEA obtain data from HHS, CDC, and CMS on topics such as patterns of drug abuse, and that such information be considered for calculating aggregate production quota. The same commenters suggested that the information from HHS, CDC, and CMS can contribute to appropriate methods for determining quantities of controlled substances being diverted. Another commenter stated that the DEA does not distinguish between diversion and abuse when considering the quota formula. Seven commenters stated that DEA does not have reliable measures to calculate diversion of controlled substances. One of these commenters stated that DEA did not provide any examples or explanations on how DEA will collect measureable data. Two commenters suggested that DEA obtain data from the FDA on controlled substances shortages (which can be broken down by dosage) to help the DEA quantify a clear picture of diversion risks by the specific dosage forms. Another commenter stated that DEA did not provide any scientific data that supports DEA claim that quota reductions decrease diversion of controlled substances.

    One commenter suggested DEA work on anti-diversion legislation that will put requirements in place during the manufacturing process to prevent diversion of controlled substances so it will not affect quotas. Another commenter requested DEA to provide quantitative evidence to show the impact current reductions have had on diversion of controlled substances.

    DEA Response: The DEA is committed to continuously developing sound and reliable methods for determining quantities of controlled substances being diverted. Currently, DEA's reliable method to measure the diversion of controlled substances occurs at the level of individual dosage manufacturers rather than at the aggregate production quota level. Selected opioid dispositions from these manufacturers are compared to known, completed regulatory and operation enforcement actions and counted toward diverted quantities for individual manufacturers and not the aggregate production quota itself.

    Modifications to section 1303.11 would allow relevant information from appropriate HHS components to be considered in setting the aggregate production quota. HHS studies the use and misuse of controlled substances regarding the quantities of controlled substances necessary to support the medical needs in the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 242(a). Furthermore, the CDC and the CMS may have relevant information related to the patterns of drug abuse and the diversion of controlled substances for illicit use which DEA will also consider when setting the aggregate production quota. The information collected from HHS through FDA, CDC, and CMS, and that collected from the states, will improve DEA's ability to distinguish diversion of controlled substances at a more geographically localized level. The information collected will enhance the DEA's ability to determine registrant's compliance with suspicious order monitoring regulations. The modifications to section 1303.22 will allow the Administrator to require additional information from manufacturing quota applicants that will assist the DEA in detecting or preventing diversion of controlled substances.

    The Administrator of the DEA has the authority to determine the total quantity of each basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II needed in each calendar year for medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for lawful export, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The DEA has observed a decline for certain prescriptions written for Schedule II opioids since 2014 which can be attributed to federal and state government activities and interventions, including the implementation of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs, enforcement of current regulations, and guidance documents such as the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States March 2016.

    D. Trend in the Number of Prescriptions Written for Controlled Substances

    Issue: The DEA received 36 comments from commenters stating that prescription data shows that there has been a downward trend in the prescribing of controlled substances for the last several years, therefore prescription opioids are not responsible for the current opioid epidemic. As such, the commenters believed there was no need for the regulations to be updated. There were comments received from patients describing their inability to receive prescriptions for pain medications; they stated that their doctors had placed blame on the DEA.

    DEA Response: The DEA acknowledges that prescriptions for opioid drug products have decreased over the last several years due to the stepped up civil, criminal, and regulatory enforcement efforts of the agency. However, while there is a downward trend in prescribing, these schedule II prescription opiates continue to have a high potential for abuse and dependence and require the annual assessment of quotas. These decreases can be attributed to DEA's 360 Strategy, which combines local, state, and federal activities and interventions, including creating new partnerships, enforcing current regulations, and dissemination of provider education and guidance documents, including the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain released in March 2016. In addition, more states have enacted and are enforcing laws mandating the use of PDMPs by medical providers and pharmacists, which provides prescribers with valuable information to guide their medical decisions.5 As such, this final rule will allow the downward trend to continue through the continued sharing of information from different HHS components and states.

    5Challenges and Solutions in the Opioid Abuse Crisis: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 115th Cong. 6,10 (2018) (statement of Robert W. Patterson, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration).

    E. Fifteen Day Comment Period

    Issue: The DEA received 5 comments from commenters who felt the proposed rule's comment period was too short. One commenter suggested that the comment period remain open for 180 days because of the complex issues being addressed in the document. Two commenters voiced displeasure with the length of the comment period stating that it made it seem like the average citizens' opinion was not being valued.

    One national organization noted that the comment period provided by the DEA was unusual in its brevity. The national organization referenced Executive Order 13563, as well as guidance from the Administrative Conference of the United States, to suggest that the DEA comment period should have at least been 30 days since it was a rulemaking that was not considered “significant.” The national organization stated that they were not certain that the additional 15 days necessary to achieve the 30-day period for review and input by experts outside of the agency would meaningfully “impede putting into effect the diversion countermeasures [the proposal] authorizes.”

    DEA Response: The APA does not specify a minimum time for submission of written comments. Agencies must provide the public with a “meaningful opportunity” to comment on a proposed notice. Rural Cellular Ass'n v. FCC, 588 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009). While the length of the comment period is a factor in determining whether the public was afforded a “meaningful opportunity” to comment, courts have upheld comment periods of less than 30 days. See, e.g. Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding 15-day comment period where there was “urgent necessity for rapid administrative action under the circumstances” and the public was not harmed).

    Under Executive Order 13563, there is a presumption that a period of 60 days should be allotted for the comment period. The Administrative Conference of the United States' recommendations serve as guidance for the notice-and-comment period. While they recommend 30 to 60 days depending on the significance of a rule, they also recommend that agencies provide an explanation when they set a shorter comment period, as was done in the NPRM. 76 FR 48791 (Aug. 9, 2011).

    Here, the DEA received more than 1,500 comments, many of which included a thoughtful and detailed analysis. Due to the opioid epidemic as expressed in the proposed rule and the urgent need to finalize this rule, the 15-day comment period was sufficient.

    F. Clarification of What Additional Data DEA May Seek From Registrants

    Issue: There were 11 comments received seeking clarification of what additional information the Administrator may require from registrants. The majority of the comments received were from industry and advocacy groups. While they agreed that steps need to be taken to address the current opioid epidemic, the views were not completely in support of the possibility of having to turn in additional information.

    One company felt the proposed changes seemed to codify the current practice of considering ARCOS (Automated Reporting and Consolidated Orders System) data when setting quotas. Many comments under this issue suggested that the DEA clearly detail what information would be required. A trade group also explained that knowing what the DEA could request beforehand would allow manufacturers the ability to ensure that systems are in place to collect and provide relevant data in a timely manner. The group felt that the DEA should determine whether additional data should be required beyond what is already required for schedule II controlled substances by way of the DEA Form 222. The group also requested that the DEA make sure that any additional requested information not place an undue burden on manufacturers or delay the issuance of initial quotas. They argued that DEA needs to include adequate protection of proprietary and sensitive commercial and financial information provided by the manufacturers, because the additional data allowed for the collection of trade secrets or confidential commercial information. One association asked for the additional data to be used in a timely fashion to help anticipate and address potential shortages in the future. Another organization strongly objected to the proposed rule, because they did not see how the additional information could be useful in reducing opioid abuse and overdose when the main source of the problem is illicit drugs.

    A pharmaceutical company requested that the DEA provide opportunities for companies to receive guidance and training on how to best satisfy the additional information requirements. Another pharmaceutical company stated they contract with Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMO) for the manufacturing of their finished drug products, and that because of this the CMO would be the actual quota applicant but would not be equipped with the additional information to help in detecting and preventing diversion.

    Two states commented on this issue and both applauded the DEA for taking action. West Virginia stated that obtaining additional information would be helpful because some of the legitimate demand may be double counted by way of multiple applicants relying on the same amounts of legitimate demand from the same customers. West Virginia's view was that the additional information will allow the DEA to prevent excess quota levels. Ohio also agreed with the proposed rule and encouraged the DEA to consider a more rigorous and information-driven quota application process.

    DEA Response: The DEA acknowledges that the CSA's requirement for allotting quotas for manufacturers was enacted on the business model of a vertically integrated system. Since its enactment, manufacturers have determined new and innovative ways of conducting business, as a response to a more robust, competitive market. While the CSA allows for adequate domestic competition, it also limits this competition to the legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial needs of the United States. The DEA has always had the ability to request information to clarify and support a manufacturer's request for quota to ensure that any quota granted is limited to legitimate need. Detailed information about what may be requested for clarification or support cannot be provided because the request would be on a case-by-case basis. DEA does not provide a list of additional items needed to process quotas because they may not pertain to every registrant. Therefore, additional data will be determined in light of the information manufacturers provide to the DEA as justification for a quota.

    Manufacturers of schedule I and II substances provide information needed to assist the DEA in making a quota determination. The information provided is based on their individual business activities. Regulations require manufacturers to utilize DEA Form 222 6 to document purchase and disposition information between DEA registrations; similar information is also transmitted to ARCOS. A limitation of ARCOS can be the reporting period a company opts to report their data (monthly or quarterly) and the timeliness of corrections to any errors in the reported data. There is no undue burden or cost to supply this information because it is already being captured in some form by the company per CSA regulations and good business practices.

    6 21 CFR 1305.11-1305.19.

    The DEA communicates with registrants who have pending quota applications via telephone or email when necessary, to request clarification or additional information required to process their applications in a timely manner. The DEA also maintains an email box that registrants may preemptively supply information and communicate concerns related to quota requirements. Appropriate safeguards are currently in place to protect confidential business information.

    As stated above, requesting clarification or additional information is a current practice of DEA. The DEA provides training conferences annually, in strategic locations, to help registrants understand quota and reporting requirements. The agency also provides the presentations from the trainings on the DEA website. During these conferences, DEA explicitly states it never provides confidential and proprietary information supplied by registrants to outside sources. The additional information that may be requested is important and an integral part of the analysis as it helps DEA determine the amount of quota a manufacturer should be granted.

    G. Other Comments

    Approximately 1,300 comments were received from the general public expressing concerns about the proposed regulations affecting their ability to get their prescriptions, and the possibility of drug shortages being created because of the proposed rule. The DEA understands and appreciates the nature of the comments. It is not the DEA's intent to create shortages or prevent a patient with a legitimate need from getting their prescription. The purpose of the proposed rule is to improve the process of setting the annual quota while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the United States' legitimate needs.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), has reviewed this final rule and by approving it certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The DEA estimates that 325 manufacturers may be affected by the final rule, of which 301 manufacturers (92.6% of the total) are small entities. There will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of these small entities or any others because, as the ensuing certifications discuss, any overall cost of the rule is not significant.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771—Regulatory Planning and Review, and Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The DEA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f). The DEA analyzed the economic impact of each provision of this final rule. Section 1303.11 is amended to make two additions to the list of factors to be considered by the Administrator in setting the aggregate production quotas. First, it adds the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class. Second, it adds relevant information from HHS and its components, as well as from the states. The DEA has always considered any information obtained from other federal and state government agencies when fixing the aggregate production quotas for a controlled substance. While the DEA may receive additional information that is valuable in detecting and preventing diversion, the DEA has no reason to believe that there will be adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

    Additionally, §§ 1303.11 and 1303.13 are amended to require the DEA to transmit copies of aggregate production quotas and any adjustments to those quotas published in the Federal Register directly to state attorneys general. While the DEA anticipates some labor burden to transmit aggregate production quota notices and orders to each state attorney general, the DEA estimates that this activity will result in a minimal yearly cost to the DEA and that the DEA has sufficient resources to absorb this minimal cost.

    Additionally, §§ 1303.11, 1303.13, and 1303.32 are amended to explicitly state that the DEA Administrator shall hold a hearing if he or she determines it is necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state objecting to the proposed quantity for the class as excessive for legitimate United States need. The estimated yearly cost of this revision will be dependent on the number of hearings the DEA Administrator determines to be necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state regarding the aggregate production quota. Hearings regarding aggregate production quotas are infrequent and the DEA estimates that hearings of this type will continue to be infrequent under this final rule. For these reasons, the DEA does not expect a material increase in the number of hearings or in the associated costs to DEA or the states.

    Sections 1303.12 and 1303.22 are amended to explicitly state that the Administrator may require additional information from an individual manufacturing or procurement quota applicant, including customer identities and amounts of controlled substances sold to each of their customers. Currently, the DEA can and does request additional information of this nature from quota applicants if deemed necessary. While affording the Administrator express regulatory authority to require such information may result in the receipt of additional information that is valuable in detecting and preventing diversion, it is not expected that the difference will have adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate E.O. 12866.

    Sections 1303.11, 1303.13, and 1303.23 are amended to add the requirement that the DEA consider diversion of a controlled substance when fixing aggregate production quotas, adjusting aggregate production quotas, and fixing individual manufacturing quotas. When fixing and adjusting the aggregate production quota, or fixing an individual manufacturing quota for a controlled substance, the DEA has always considered all available information regarding the diversion of that controlled substance. While the final rule's amendments, as discussed above, may result in the receipt and consideration of additional information relating to diversion, it is not expected that the difference will have adverse economic impact or other consequences sufficient to implicate E.O. 12866.

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

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule codifies current agency practice under existing approved information collections, and does not impose new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Congressional Review Act

    This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1303

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, part 1303 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 1303—QUOTAS 1. The authority citation for part 1303 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 821, 826, 871(b).

    2. In § 1303.11: a. Remove the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(4). b. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(7). c. Add new paragraph (b)(5) and paragraph (b)(6). d. Revise paragraph (c).

    The additions and revision read as follows:

    § 1303.11 Aggregate production quotas.

    (b) * * *

    (5) The extent of any diversion of the controlled substance in the class;

    (6) Relevant information obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services, including from the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and relevant information obtained from the states; and

    (c) The Administrator shall, on or before May 1 of each year, publish in the Federal Register, general notice of an aggregate production quota for any basic class determined by him under this section. A copy of said notice shall be mailed simultaneously to each person registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class and transmitted to each state attorney general. The Administrator shall permit any interested person to file written comments on or objections to the proposal and shall designate in the notice the time during which such filings may be made. The Administrator may, but shall not be required to, hold a public hearing on one or more issues raised by the comments and objections filed with him, except that the Administrator shall hold a hearing if he determines it is necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state objecting to the proposed quantity for the class as excessive for legitimate United States' needs. In the event the Administrator decides to hold a hearing, he shall publish notice of the hearing in the Federal Register, which notice shall summarize the issues to be heard and shall set the time for the hearing, which shall not be less than 30 days after the date of publication of the notice. After consideration of any comments or objections, or after a hearing if one is ordered by the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue and publish in the Federal Register his final order determining the aggregate production quota for the basic class of controlled substances. The order shall include the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the order is based. The order shall specify the date on which it shall take effect. A copy of said order shall be mailed simultaneously to each person registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class and transmitted to each state attorney general.

    3. In § 1303.12, paragraph (b), add after the fifth sentence a new sentence to read as follows:
    § 1303.12 Procurement quotas.

    (b) * * * The Administrator may require additional information from an applicant which, in the Administrator's judgment, may be helpful in detecting or preventing diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer. * * *

    4. In § 1303.13, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 1303.13 Adjustments of aggregate production quotas.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Changes in the demand for that class, changes in the national rate of net disposal of the class, changes in the rate of net disposal of the class by registrants holding individual manufacturing quotas for that class, and changes in the extent of any diversion in the class;

    (c) The Administrator in the event he determines to increase or reduce the aggregate production quota for a basic class of controlled substance, shall publish in the Federal Register general notice of an adjustment in the aggregate production quota for that class determined by him under this section. A copy of said notice shall be mailed simultaneously to each person registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class and transmitted to each state attorney general. The Administrator shall permit any interested person to file written comments on or objections to the proposal and shall designate in the notice the time during which such filings may be made. The Administrator may, but shall not be required to, hold a public hearing on one or more issues raised by the comments and objections filed with him, except that the Administrator shall hold a hearing if he determines it is necessary to resolve an issue of material fact raised by a state objecting to the proposed adjusted quota as excessive for legitimate United States' needs. In the event the Administrator decides to hold a hearing, he shall publish notice of the hearing in the Federal Register, which notice shall summarize the issues to be heard and shall set the time for the hearing, which shall not be less than 10 days after the date of publication of the notice. After consideration of any comments or objections, or after a hearing if one is ordered by the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue and publish in the Federal Register his final order determining the aggregate production for the basic class of controlled substance. The order shall include the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the order is based. The order shall specify the date on which it shall take effect. A copy of said order shall be mailed simultaneously to each person registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class and transmitted to each state attorney general.

    § 1303.21 [Amended]
    5. In § 1303.21, in paragraph (a), remove “§§ ” in the second sentence and add in its place “§ ”. 6. In § 1303.22: a. In paragraph (c)(2), remove the word “econolic” and add in its place the word “economic”. b. Add paragraph (d).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 1303.22 Procedure for applying for individual manufacturing quotas.

    (d) The Administrator may require additional information from an applicant which, in the Administrator's judgment, may be helpful in detecting or preventing diversion, including customer identities and amounts of the controlled substance sold to each customer.

    § 1303.23 [Amended]
    7. In § 1303.23, add the phrase “the extent of any diversion of the controlled substance,” after “strikes),” in paragraph (a)(2), and add the phrase “any risk of diversion of the controlled substance,” after “strikes),” in paragraph (b)(2).
    § 1303.32 [Amended]
    8. In § 1303.32, in paragraph (a), add the phrase “and shall, if determined by the Administrator to be necessary under § 1303.11(c) or 1303.13(c) based on objection by a state,” before “hold a hearing”. Dated: July 11, 2018. Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15141 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 28, 30, 87, 180, and 3282 [Docket No. FR-6076-F-01] RIN 2501-AD86 Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2018 AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule provides for 2018 inflation adjustments of civil monetary penalty amounts required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective date for 2018 inflation adjustment: August 15, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dane Narode, Associate General Counsel, Office of Program Enforcement, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20024; telephone number 202-245-4141 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74, Sec. 701), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), requires agencies to make annual adjustments to civil monetary penalty (CMP) amounts for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” Section 553 refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, which might otherwise require a delay for advance notice and opportunity for public comment on future annual inflation adjustments. This annual adjustment is for 2018.

    The annual adjustment is based on the percent change between the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the CPI-U for October of the prior year (28 U.S.C. 2461 note, section (5)(b)(1)). Based on that formula, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2018 is 1.02041.1 Pursuant to the 2015 Act, adjustments are rounded to the nearest dollar.2

    1 Office of Management and Budget, M-18-03, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2018, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-03.pdf). (October 2017 CPI-U (246.663)/October 2016 CPI-U (241.729) = 1.02041.)

    2 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    II. This Final Rule

    This rule makes the required 2018 inflation adjustment. Since HUD is not applying these adjustments retroactively, the 2018 increases apply to violations occurring on or after this rule's effective date. For each component, HUD provides a table showing how the penalties are being adjusted for 2018 pursuant to the 2015 Act. In the first column (“Description”), HUD provides a description of the penalty. In the second column (“Statutory Citation”), HUD provides the United States Code statutory citation providing for the penalty. In the third column (“Regulatory Citation”), HUD provides the Code of Federal Regulations citation under Title 24 for the penalty. In the fourth column (“Previous Amount”), HUD provides the amount of the penalty pursuant to the rule implementing the 2017 adjustment (82 FR 24521, May 30, 2017). In the fifth column (“2018 Adjusted Amount”), HUD lists the penalty after applying the 2018 inflation adjustment.

    Description Statutory citation Regulatory
  • citation
  • (24 CFR)
  • Previous amount 2018 Adjusted amount
    False Claims & Statements Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3802(a)(1)) 28.10 $10,957 $11,181. Advance Disclosure of Funding Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3537a(c)) 30.20 $19,246 $19,639. Disclosure of Subsidy Layering Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3545(f)) 30.25 $19,246 $19,639. FHA Mortgagees and Lenders Violations HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1735f-14(a)(2)) 30.35 Per Violation: $9,623
  • Per Year: $1,924,589
  • Per Violation: $9,819.
  • Per Year: $1,963,870.
  • Other FHA Participants Violations HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1735f-14(a)(2)) 30.36 Per Violation: $9,623
  • Per Year: $1,924,589
  • Per Violation: $9,819.
  • Per Year: $1,963,870.
  • Indian Loan Mortgagees Violations Housing Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a(g)(2)) 30.40 Per Violation: $9,623
  • Per Year: $1,924,589
  • Per Violation: $9,819.
  • Per Year: $1,963,870.
  • Multifamily & Section 202 or 811 Owners Violations HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1735f-15(c)(2)) 30.45 $48,114 $49,096. Ginnie Mae Issuers & Custodians Violations HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1723i(b)) 30.50 Per Violation: $9,623
  • Per Year: $1,924,589
  • Per Violation: $9,819.
  • Per Year: $1,963,870.
  • Title I Broker & Dealers Violations HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1703) 30.60 Per Violation: $9,623
  • Per Year: $1,924,589
  • Per Violation: $9,819.
  • Per Year: $1,963,870.
  • Lead Disclosure Violation Title X—Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(1)) 30.65 $17,047 $17,395. Section 8 Owners Violations Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-1(b)(2)) 30.68 $37,396 $38,159. Lobbying Violation The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1352) 87.400 Min: $19,246
  • Max: $192,459
  • Min: $19,639.
  • Max: $196,387.
  • Fair Housing Act Civil Penalties Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3612(g)(3)) 180.671(a) No Priors: $20,111
  • One Prior: $50,276
  • Two or More Priors: $100,554
  • No Priors: $20,521.
  • One Prior: $51,302.
  • Two or More Priors: $102,606.
  • Manufactured Housing Regulations Violation Housing Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5410) 3282.10 Per Violation: $2,795
  • Per Year: $3,493,738
  • Per Violation: $2,852.
  • Per Year: $3,565,045.
  • II. Justification for Final Rulemaking for the 2018 Adjustments

    HUD generally publishes regulations for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advanced notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (see 24 CFR 10.1). As discussed, this rule makes the required 2018 inflation adjustment, which HUD does not have discretion to change. Moreover, the 2015 Act specifies that a delay in the effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required for annual adjustments under the 2015 Act. HUD has determined, therefore, that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of the 2018 inflation adjustments to solicit prior public comments.

    Section 7(o) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(o)) requires that any HUD regulation implementing any provision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 that authorizes the imposition of a civil money penalty may not become effective until after the expiration of a public comment period of not less than 60 days. This rule does not authorize the imposition of a civil money penalty—rather, it makes a standard inflation adjustment to penalties that were previously authorized. As noted above, the 2018 inflation adjustments are made in accordance with a statutorily prescribed formula that does not provide for agency discretion. Accordingly, a delay in the effectiveness of the 2018 inflation adjustments in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment is unnecessary because the 2015 Act exempts the adjustments from the need for delay, the rule does not authorize the imposition of a civil money penalty, and, in any event, HUD would not have the discretion to make changes as a result of any comments.

    IV. Findings and Certifications Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) requires that for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for removal, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. As discussed above in this preamble, this final rule adjusts existing civil monetary penalties for inflation by a statutorily required amount.

    As a result of this review, OMB determined that this rule was not significant under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. Moreover, as this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because HUD has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without prior public comment, this rule is not subject to the requirement to publish an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA as part of such action.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 3 requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of UMRA also requires an agency to identity and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule.4 However, the UMRA applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. As discussed above, HUD has determined, for good cause, that prior notice and public comment is not required on this rule and, therefore, the UMRA does not apply to this final rule.

    3 2 U.S.C. 1532.

    4 2 U.S.C. 1534.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive order.

    Environmental Review

    This interim final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern, or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    List of Subjects 24 CFR Part 28

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

    24 CFR Part 30

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs-housing and community development, Loan programs-housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Penalties.

    24 CFR Part 87

    Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 180

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Civil rights, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    24 CFR Part 3282

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Intergovernmental relations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts 28, 30, 87, 180, and 3282 to read as follows:

    PART 28—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT OF 1986 1. The authority citation for part 28 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    2. In § 28.10, revise paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 28.10 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

    (a) Claims. (1) A civil penalty of not more than $11,181 may be imposed upon any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or has reason to know:

    (b) Statements. (1) A civil penalty of not more than $11,181 may be imposed upon any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a written statement that:

    PART 30—CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES: CERTAIN PROHIBITED CONDUCT 3. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1701q-1, 1703, 1723i, 1735f-14, and 1735f-15; 15 U.S.C. 1717a; 28 U.S.C. 1 note and 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 1437z-1 and 3535(d).

    4. In § 30.20, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 30.20 Ethical violations by HUD employees.

    (b) Maximum penalty. The maximum penalty is $19,639 for each violation.

    5. In § 30.25, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 30.25 Violations by applicants for assistance.

    (b) Maximum penalty. The maximum penalty is $19,639 for each violation.

    6. In § 30.35, revise the first sentence in paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 30.35 Mortgagees and lenders.

    (c)(1) * * * The maximum penalty is $9,819 for each violation, up to a limit of $1,963,870 for all violations committed during any one-year period. * * *

    7. In § 30.36, revise the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 30.36 Other participants in FHA programs.

    (c) * * * The maximum penalty is $9,819 for each violation, up to a limit of $1,963,870 for all violations committed during any one-year period. * * *

    8. In § 30.40, revise the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 30.40 Loan guarantees for Indian housing.

    (c) * * * The maximum penalty is $9,819 for each violation, up to a limit of $1,963,870 for all violations committed during any one-year period. * * *

    9. In § 30.45, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 30.45 Multifamily and section 202 or 811 mortgagors.

    (g) Maximum penalty. The maximum penalty for each violation under paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section is $49,096.

    10. In § 30.50, revise the first sentence in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 30.50 GNMA issuers and custodians.

    (c) * * * The maximum penalty is $9,819 for each violation, up to a limit of $1,963,870 during any one-year period. * * *

    11. In § 30.60, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 30.60 Dealers or sponsored third-party originators.

    (c) Amount of penalty. The maximum penalty is $9,819 for each violation, up to a limit for any particular person of $1,963,870 during any one-year period.

    12. In § 30.65, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 30.65 Failure to disclose lead-based paint hazards.

    (b) Amount of penalty. The maximum penalty is $17,395 for each violation.

    13. In § 30.68, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 30.68 Section 8 owners.

    (c) Maximum penalty. The maximum penalty for each violation under this section is $38,159.

    PART 87—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 14. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 1 note; 31 U.S.C. 1352; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    15. In § 87.400, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to read as follows:
    § 87.400 Penalties.

    (a) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $19,639 and not more than $196,387 for each such expenditure.

    (b) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $19,639 and not more than $196,387 for each such failure.

    (e) First offenders under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $19,639, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $19,639 and $196,387 as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.

    PART 180—CONSOLIDATED HUD HEARING PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL RIGHTS MATTERS 16. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 1 note; 29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1, 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5320, and 6103.

    17. In § 180.671, revise paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) to read as follows:
    § 180.671 Assessing civil penalties for Fair Housing Act cases.

    (a) * * *

    (1) $20,521, if the respondent has not been adjudged in any administrative hearing or civil action permitted under the Fair Housing Act or any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local governmental agency, to have committed any prior discriminatory housing practice.

    (2) $51,302, if the respondent has been adjudged in any administrative hearing or civil action permitted under the Fair Housing Act, or under any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local government agency, to have committed one other discriminatory housing practice and the adjudication was made during the 5-year period preceding the date of filing of the charge.

    (3) $102,606, if the respondent has been adjudged in any administrative hearings or civil actions permitted under the Fair Housing Act, or under any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local government agency, to have committed two or more discriminatory housing practices and the adjudications were made during the 7-year period preceding the date of filing of the charge.

    PART 3282—MANUFACTURED HOME PROCEDURAL AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 18. The authority citation for part 3282 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 1 note; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5424.

    19. Revise § 3282.10 to read as follows:
    § 3282.10 Civil and criminal penalties.

    Failure to comply with these regulations may subject the party in question to the civil and criminal penalties provided for in section 611 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5410. The maximum amount of penalties imposed under section 611 of the Act shall be $2,852 for each violation, up to a maximum of $3,565,045 for any related series of violations occurring within one year from the date of the first violation.

    Dated: July 8, 2018. J. Paul Compton, Jr., General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15116 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337; FRL-9980-68—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (the Commonwealth or Virginia). This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337. 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 availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814-2021, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21233), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Virginia's submittal to address the infrastructure requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Virginia through the Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on May 16, 2017.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Virginia's May 16, 2017 SIP submittal includes a summary of annual emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), both of which are precursors of PM2.5. The emissions summary shows that emissions from Virginia sources have been steadily decreasing for sources that could potentially contribute, with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of, any other state. The submittal also included currently available air quality monitoring data for PM2.5, and its precursors SO2 and NO2, which Virginia alleged show that PM2.5 levels continue to be below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in Virginia.

    Additionally, Virginia described in its submittal several existing SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable source-specific measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within Virginia. Virginia concludes that the Commonwealth does not significantly contribute to, nor interfere with the maintenance of, another state for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    A detailed summary of Virginia's submittal and EPA's review and rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be found in the NPR and Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking action, which are available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337.

    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum1 and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same conclusion as Virginia. As discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then evaluated them to determine if Virginia's emissions could potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in 2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA concluded Virginia was not significantly contributing to nonattainment nor interfering with maintenance with 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state.

    1 “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the docket for this rulemaking action.

    III. Public Comments

    Two anonymous public comments were received on the NPR. The first comment generally discussed greenhouse gases and climate change and was determined to not be relevant nor specific to this rulemaking action. Thus, no response is provided for this comment. The second comment expressed that the commenter would not like to see particulate pollution from Virginia or any state degrade Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's air. As explained in the proposed rulemaking in detail, EPA determined that Virginia's emission sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, nor interfere with maintenance, of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. EPA also concluded that Allegheny County, Pennsylvania was likely to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS without the need for further emission reductions. Thus, EPA does not expect emissions from Virginia to degrade Allegheny County, Pennsylvania's air quality.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the May 16, 2017 SIP revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to the Virginia SIP because the submittal adequately addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.

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

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

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

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

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

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 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, addressing Virginia's interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding a second entry for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS after the first entry to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (e)* * *

    (1)* * *

    Name of
  • non-regulatory SIP
  • revision
  • Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 Particulate Matter NAAQS Statewide 05/16/17 7/16/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Docket 2017-0337. This action addresses the infrastructure element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-15049 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0637; FRL-9980-70—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; MD; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This SIP revision fulfills Maryland's emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0637. 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 availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Trouba, (215) 814-2023, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On February 20, 2018 (83 FR 7124), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Maryland's certification that Maryland's emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision (#17-02) was submitted by Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), on September 25, 2017.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    In Maryland's September 25, 2017 SIP revision submittal, Maryland states that the existing COMAR 26.11.01.05-1 “Emissions Statements” rule satisfies CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), states are required to have an emission statements rule for nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, states in the ozone transport region are required to have an emission statement rule statewide, including for attainment areas. See CAA sections 182(a)(3)(B), 182(f), and 184(b)(2). EPA previously approved Maryland's emissions statement rule for the 1979 1-hour ozone standard, COMAR 26.11.01.05-1, into the Maryland SIP. See 59 FR 51517 (October 12, 1994). EPA has determined that COMAR 26.11.01.05-1, which is currently in the Maryland SIP, is appropriate to address the emissions statement requirement in section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is approving this SIP revision that certifies that COMAR 26.11.01.05-1 is adequate. Other specific requirements of the revised Maryland COMAR regulations and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received fourteen public comments on our February 20, 2018 NPR proposing to approve Maryland's September 25, 2017 submittal. Only one comment was adverse and relevant to this action. The adverse comment is summarized and responded to in the following paragraph. All other comments received were not specific to this action, and thus are not addressed here.

    Comment: The commenter alleges that the EPA is requesting a modification to Maryland's SIP. The commenter stated that this action will not directly affect Maryland's atmosphere, small businesses, organizations or governments. The commenter stated that EPA could choose to not change the SIP and leave the regulations as they are without effect to pollutant emissions. The commenter also expressed the need for more detailed social and cultural impacts of the plan revision and stated social and cultural effects should be monitored as the plan is implemented. Finally, the commenter stated further impacts should be evaluated once the “new plan” is established.

    Response: Maryland submitted this SIP revision certifying that requirements already in the Maryland SIP are adequate to meet the statutory requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) as it pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Section 110(k)(3) states that “the Administrator shall approve a plan revision as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements of the CAA. As stated in the NPR, Maryland's submission meets requirements in CAA section 182 for emission statements. Thus, pursuant to section 110(k)(3), EPA does not have discretion to disapprove the submittal if the state-requested SIP revision meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B). This action pertains to certification of the requirement for the State of Maryland to have an emissions statement rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard for nonattainment areas. The State has certified that the state regulation that is already in the existing SIP is adequate. EPA is approving the State certification and not imposing any new requirements. EPA disagrees with the commenter that further social and cultural “impacts” should be evaluated because nothing in the CAA requires monitoring of such impacts from SIP revisions.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of Maryland's September 25, 2017 SIP revision submittal which addresses the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS emissions statement requirements as a revision to the Maryland SIP.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action, approving Maryland's certification that it's SIP-approved emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Cecil Rodrigues, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry for Maryland's emission statement requirement certification for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1070 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Material Name of non-
  • regulatory SIP
  • revision
  • Applicable
  • geographic
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA
  • approval
  • date
  • Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Emission statement requirement certification for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard State-wide September 25, 2017 7/16/2018, [Insert Federal Register citation] Certification that Maryland's previously approved regulation at COMAR 26.11.01.05-1 meets the emission statement requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15048 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-9980-64—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Research Center Property (RCP) of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site (Site), in Rockton, Illinois from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion includes all media at the 20-acre RCP. The rest of the Site remains on the NPL and is not affected by this action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA is publishing this direct final partial deletion with the concurrence of the State of Illinois because all appropriate response actions at the RCP under CERCLA have been completed, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final partial deletion is effective September 14, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 15, 2018. If adverse comments are received, will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the partial deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, by one of the following methods: http://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 (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6036.

    Hand deliver: Superfund Records Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, (312)886-0900. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. 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:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-0900, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Talcott Free Library, 101 East Main Street, Rockton, IL 61072, Phone: (815) 624-7511, Hours: Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Wednesday and Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6036, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Partial Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion V. Partial Deletion Action I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Beloit Corporation (Beloit Corp.) Site (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property portion of the Site, PIN 03-12-452-003, located at 1155 Prairie Hill Road, Rockton, Illinois. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR. Part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Beloit Corp. 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. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 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.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003 of the Beloit Corp. Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete this portion of the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    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. Partial Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003 of the Beloit Corp. Site:

    (1) EPA has consulted with the State of Illinois prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion published in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review of this action and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the State, through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), has concurred on the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in two major local newspapers, the Rockton Herald and the Rockford Register Star. The newspaper notices announce the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified in the ADDRESSES Section of this rule.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already received.

    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 further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003, of the Beloit Corp. Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The Beloit Corp. Site (CERCLIS ID ILD021440375) is located in Rockton, Winnebago County, Illinois. The Site consists of one, site-wide operable unit. The Site includes the approximately 200-acre former Beloit Corp. property and additional adjacent areas, including the Blackhawk Acres residential subdivision, and other industrial properties adjacent to the subdivision, including the former Soterion/United Recovery facility, a portion of the Taylor, Inc. property and the Safe-T-Way property. The Site is bound on the north by Prairie Hill Road, on the west by the Rock River, on the south by a line projected from the Rock River along the south edge of a Village of Rockton easement and access road to Blackhawk Boulevard, and on the east by Blackhawk Boulevard. See Figures 1 and 2 in Maps—Beloit Corp. Site and Area for Partial Deletion, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0286 in the Docket.

    The Beloit Corp. used approximately 20 acres of its 200-acre property for a research center (the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property), and 55 acres for a manufacturing plant, a wastewater treatment plant and lagoons, a gravel pit, and parking and outdoor storage areas. The Beloit Corp. used about 39 acres of open field south of its manufacturing and storage areas for foundry sand disposal and fibrous sludge spreading. About 86 heavily wooded acres of the Beloit Corp. property located west and south of the operations areas remain vacant and are within a backwater and floodplain area of the Rock River.

    The Beloit Corp. property is divided into several parcels of land and has been redeveloped. The northern parcel of the Site is the location of the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center, PIN 03-12-452-003, and is the property EPA is deleting from the Site (see Property Map for 03-12-452-003 in Maps—Beloit Corp. Site and Area for Partial Deletion, Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0286 in the Docket). This property is approximately 20.757 acres and is owned by the Rock River Land Development Company (Rock River). The address for this property is 1155 Prairie Hill Road, Rockton, Illinois. The property is zoned for heavy industrial use and is occupied by Andritz Paperchine, a supplier of papermaking technology.

    The remaining western and southern parcels of the former Beloit Corp. property are owned by Lubrizol Holding, Inc. (Lubrizol) and are not being deleted as part of this action. These parcels include the locations of the former Beloit Corp. manufacturing building, the former Beloit Corp. wastewater treatment plant and lagoons, the vacant fields, woods and floodplain areas, EPA's groundwater extraction and treatment system cleanup remedy, and the majority of EPA's groundwater monitoring well network (former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property). The PINs for these properties are 03-13-201-002, 03-12-452-002, 03-12-376-001, 03-13-126-001, 03-13-176-004. These parcels are also zoned for heavy industrial use. This part of the Site is occupied by Chemtool Inc. (Chemtool) and is used to manufacture specialized industrial lubricants. The address for the portion of the Site remaining on the NPL is 1165 Prairie Hill Road, Rockton, Illinois.

    The Beloit Corp. property was farmland until Beloit Corp. purchased it in 1957. The property has been used for industrial purposes since 1957. Beloit Corp. manufactured machines at the Site that produced layered paper products from paper pulp. Beloit Corp. used solvents at its plant for parts cleaning operations. Beloit Corp. used petroleum-based, non-chlorinated solvents until the mid-1970s, and chlorinated solvents from the mid-1970s until 1983. The exact composition of the chlorinated solvents and the amounts Beloit Corp. used are unknown. Beloit Corp. used mineral spirits for metal degreasing and parts cleaning from 1983 until the facility closed in 1999.

    IEPA began investigating potential contamination on the Beloit Corp. property and in the surrounding area in the 1980s. In 1986, IEPA sampled residential wells in the Blackhawk Acres subdivision adjacent to the Beloit Corp. facility. Sixteen of the 55 private drinking water wells that were sampled were contaminated.

    IEPA's investigations determined that the most likely source of the groundwater contamination in the Blackhawk Acres subdivision was the Beloit Corp. EPA proposed the Beloit Corp. property and the surrounding area to the NPL as the Beloit Corp. Superfund Site on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988). EPA finalized listing the Beloit Corp. Site on the NPL on August 30, 1990 (55 FR 35502).

    Beloit Corp. entered into a Consent Decree with IEPA in 1991 to conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) at the Site. The RI found that the groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-tricloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), and trichloroethene (TCE).

    In 1993, IEPA determined that three residential wells in the Blackhawk Acres subdivision contained TCE in groundwater above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. IEPA subsequently fitted these three residential wells contaminated above the MCL with carbon filtration systems plus IEPA fitted a fourth residential well with a carbon filtration system. The filtration systems continue to be maintained by IEPA. In 1999, IEPA connected a fifth residence with contaminated well water to the Rockton municipal water supply when the contamination was discovered in 1998.

    The highest area of groundwater contamination is located under the southern area of the Erection Bay section of the Beloit Corp. manufacturing building. The primary groundwater contaminant in this area is PCE. The PCE contamination is believed to be due to the discharge of VOCs to the ground surface before Beloit Corp. constructed the Erection Bay over this area in 1989. The groundwater contamination is in the upper aquifer and generally flows from north to south. The groundwater contamination does not impact the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, which is upgradient of the contaminant plume and EPA is deleting from the NPL in this action.

    IEPA issued an Action Memorandum to Beloit Corp. in 1996 to implement an Interim Source Control Action (ISCA) at the Site. The Action Memorandum required immediate measures to control the high levels of VOC groundwater contamination near the Beloit Corp. manufacturing building.

    Beloit Corp. conducted an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to evaluate potential ISCA alternatives. The non-time critical removal action objectives developed in the EE/CA were to: Limit the potential for the migration of VOCs in groundwater at the Site through the installation of a groundwater containment system; initiate the removal of VOCs from the groundwater at the source area (the vicinity of the Erection Bay and groundwater monitoring well W23); install and operate an appropriate treatment system for groundwater generated by the containment system to limit unacceptable discharges or emissions; and dispose of waste streams from the action.

    IEPA selected a groundwater pump and treat system as the ISCA. Beloit Corp. developed a Removal Action Design Report and constructed the groundwater extraction and treatment system in 1996. The pump and treat system consists of four extraction wells and an air stripper tower adjacent to the southwest corner of the Beloit Corp. manufacturing building on PIN 03-13-201-002. This system is currently operated by IEPA. The treated groundwater is discharged to the Rock River at an outfall located on Beloit Corp.'s former wastewater treatment plant and lagoons property, PIN 03-12-452-002, under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

    Beloit Corp. filed for bankruptcy in 1999. As part of the bankruptcy, the court entered an order which, among other things, transferred the ownership of Beloit Corp.'s assets and liabilities, including the Beloit Corp. property, to the Beloit Liquidating Trust (the Trust). The ownership of the Beloit Corp. property then transferred to Giuffre II, LLC (Giuffre). The United States and Giuffre signed a settlement agreement in February 2002 under section 122(h) of CERCLA (the section 122(h) Agreement). The State of Illinois was also a party to the settlement agreement. The State of Illinois signed the agreement in April 2002.

    The section 122(h) Agreement settled and resolved the potential liability of Giuffre resulting from its ownership and/or operation of the Beloit Corp. property. The purpose of the section 122(h) Agreement was to facilitate the cleanup of the Site and the reuse of the property.

    On March 18, 2003, Giuffre sold the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property portion of the Site (the part of the Site being deleted as part of this action, outside the area of groundwater contamination) to PPC Investment Group LLC (PPC). PPC leased the property to Paperchine. PPC sold the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property to Rock River on January 5, 2015. Rock River continues to lease the Property to Paperchine (now known as Andritz Paperchine).

    Giuffre deeded the remaining areas of the former Beloit Corp. property (i.e., the Former Beloit Corp. manufacturing building, former wastewater treatment plant and lagoons, parking and storage areas and vacant/floodplain areas) to Rock River on January 31, 2008. Rock River subsequently leased this property to Chemtool. Lubrizol acquired Chemtool and purchased the remaining former Beloit Corp. property on August 30, 2013. Lubrizol continues to operate at the Site as Chemtool.

    This partial deletion pertains to all media at the approximately 20.757-acre Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property portion of the Beloit Corp. Site, PIN 03-12-452-003, located at 1155 Prairie Hill Road, Rockton, Illinois (see Property Map for 03-12-452-003 in Maps—Beloit Corp. Site and Area for Partial Deletion, Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0286 in the Docket).

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    Beloit Corp. conducted the RI in four phases between 1992 and 1998. The Phase I and II investigations identified and investigated the source area(s) of the VOCs at the Site. The Phase III investigation determined the extent of the VOC groundwater contamination. The Phase IV investigation evaluated potential sources of a deeper TCE contaminant plume in the upper aquifer in wells in the southern portion of the Beloit property, the southern Blackhawk Acres subdivision and in the Village of Rockton. The Phase IV investigation also evaluated whether VOCs detected at a home in the Blackhawk Acres subdivision were migrating from an upgradient source area, and determined what effect the ISCA pump and treat system was having on groundwater in the southern portion of the Blackhawk Acres subdivision.

    The RI investigated the former Beloit Corp. foundry sand disposal area, former on-Site wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) lagoons, fibrous sludge spreading area where sludge from WWTP lagoons was applied, storage yard area, Erection Bay, chip pad, former dry well, welding area, loading dock, paint room, a nearby gravel pit, the Blackhawk Acres subdivision, the Rock River and the wetlands west of the Beloit Corp. operations areas, Rockton Excavating's property, the Village of Rockton, and the Soterion property.

    The RI determined that the primary groundwater contamination at the Site originates under the southern area of the Erection Bay section of the Beloit Corp. manufacturing building. This area is located on PIN 03-13-201-002 within the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property, not the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property. The groundwater contamination is located in the shallow zone of the upper aquifer, from the water table, which is about 20 feet below ground surface (ft-bgs), to a depth of approximately 60 ft-bgs. The groundwater contamination flows generally from north to south, off-Site and away from the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property.

    The groundwater contamination is believed to be due to the discharge of VOCs to the ground surface in this area before Beloit Corp. constructed the Erection Bay over this location in 1989. Soil and soil gas sampling in this area during the RI and during an additional Source Area Investigation in 2007, however, could not find any significant residual levels of VOCs in any unsaturated soil at the Site, including below the floor of the Erection Bay building.

    The RI found a plume of deeper groundwater contamination at the Site in the upper aquifer near the southeast corner of the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property. This groundwater contamination also flows off-Site, towards Rockton and the Rock River. This groundwater contamination is also downgradient of, and flows away from the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property.

    The groundwater in the deeper plume is contaminated primarily with TCE and is found at a depth of approximately 70 ft-bgs. The source of the deeper, TCE Plume could not be located, but is believed to be in the vicinity of groundwater monitoring wells W26C and W18, near the southeast corner of the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property and the northwest corner of the Soterion facility. Extensive sampling of the soils and groundwater in these areas did not indicate the presence of residual TCE in the soils. The groundwater data however, provides evidence that a historical release of TCE occurred in this area, even though the source has since dissipated.

    The only structure on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property (the part of the Site that is being deleted) that was operated by Beloit Corp. was its research center. Beloit Corp. built the research center in 1960 and used the building to design and demonstrate its papermaking machines.

    Beloit Corp. conducted a Feasibility Study (FS) to evaluate cleanup alternatives to address the groundwater contamination at the Site. The FS did not develop cleanup alternatives to address other Site media because the baseline risk assessment did not identify any unacceptable risks associated with exposure to the other media including surface and subsurface soil, dust, vapor, surface water or sediment.

    Selected Remedy

    EPA's and IEPA's remedial action objectives for the Site are to: Prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater; prevent or minimize further migration of the contaminated groundwater plumes located at and downgradient of the Beloit Corp. manufacturing building; and to remediate the contaminated groundwater to the more stringent of either the MCLs or applicable State of Illinois Groundwater Quality Standards (35 IAC Part 620), including 35 IAC Part 620.410 Class I Groundwater Quality Standards for Class I Potable Resource Groundwater, or 35 IAC Part 620.450 Alterative Groundwater Quality Standards.

    The only remedial alternative EPA and IEPA considered for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property was institutional controls (ICs). EPA and IEPA did not evaluate an active groundwater remedy for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property because the RI determined that the groundwater in this area of the Site was not contaminated.

    EPA and IEPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site in 2004. The ROD selected a cleanup remedy for the Site which included: Continued operation and monitoring of the groundwater pump and treat ISCA system located on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property; VOC source area treatment on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property by in-situ chemical oxidation; monitored natural attenuation to address the off-property and off-Site groundwater contamination; and ICs.

    The only remedy component applicable to the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property in the ROD is the ICs. The ICs would be in the form of a restrictive covenant and would prohibit the use of shallow groundwater on the Beloit Corp. property (i.e., the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property and the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property) for potable purposes until the drinking water standards in the groundwater are attained. The ROD specifies that the current facilities at the Beloit Corp. property use groundwater from a lower groundwater aquifer that is not affected by the VOC contamination, and that this deeper groundwater can continue to be used.

    IEPA conducted additional investigations in the former manufacturing plant source area of the Site in 2006 for the remedial design. IEPA's investigations indicated that the source area of the groundwater contamination is larger than previously indicated (but not on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property), and that the aquifer material is not conducive to in-situ chemical treatment.

    EPA and IEPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in 2007 modifying the Site remedy. The ESD changed the treatment component of the remedy from in-situ chemical oxidation to installing one or more additional extraction wells south and southeast of the Erection Bay on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property. The new extraction wells would capture additional groundwater contamination. The groundwater from the additional wells would be conveyed to the existing ISCA air-stripper for treatment and discharged to the Rock River under the NPDES permit. The ESD also included pneumatic fracturing at the additional extraction well locations to loosen up the soil to increase the effectiveness of the new wells.

    The ESD did not alter the conclusion that the southern area of the Erection Bay in the manufacturing plant area of the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property is the primary source of the groundwater contamination at the Site. The ESD did not change the IC component for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property or require any additional remedial action for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property.

    The ROD as modified by the ESD, requires: (1) The continued operation of the existing groundwater pump and treat ISCA system at the source area on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property (not on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property); (2) installing additional extraction wells in the source area on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property (not on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property); (3) groundwater monitoring; (4) operating and maintaining (O&M) the ISCA pump and treat system on the Former Beloit Manufacturing Property (not on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property), and (5) implementing ICs to prohibit the withdrawal of the shallow groundwater for potable use.

    Response Actions

    IEPA completed the remedial action to expand and increase the effectiveness of the 1996 groundwater pump and treat system on the Former Beloit Manufacturing Property in 2008. IEPA expanded the groundwater pump and treat building to accommodate the increase in the volume of extracted groundwater, installed three new groundwater extraction wells, and shut down one extraction well (EW01) to adjust the zone of groundwater extraction to better target the source area.

    IEPA conducted pneumatic fracturing at the three additional extraction well locations to increase the volume of water pumped out by the extraction wells in the source area. IEPA connected the new extraction wells to the groundwater treatment system and tested the system to ensure it was properly operating. EPA documented the completion of the remedial action construction activities in a September 29, 2008 PCOR (Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0260).

    Cleanup Levels

    The cleanup levels for the groundwater contaminants at the Beloit Corp. Site are federal MCLs and/or Illinois Class I standards, whichever are more stringent. The RI determined that the groundwater below the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property is upgradient of, and is not affected, by the groundwater contamination at the Site, and that the groundwater below the Research Center Property already meets the cleanup levels for the Site.

    IEPA conducted an updated hydraulic capture zone analysis of the expanded groundwater extraction system in 2013. The updated capture zone analysis further confirms that the VOC-contaminated groundwater originating from the former Erection Bay source area is being captured and treated by the expanded ISCA pump and treat system, and is not affecting the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property. The results of the capture zone analysis are provided in the Task 1 Follow-Up Activities to the Five-Year Review Report, June 2014 (Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0269).

    Annual VOC sampling of a deep, water supply well located on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property (well WW441K) also confirms that the groundwater in the lower aquifer below the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property has not been affected by Site contamination. Well WW441K is located in the lower aquifer, which is separated from the upper aquifer by approximately 40 feet of silty clay. The well is screened from 175 to 185 ft-bgs and from 225 to 235 ft-bgs, and is approximately 100 feet deeper than the deepest contamination detected at the Site.

    Well WW441K is used to supply water for employee toilets and sink uses, and for limited cleaning purposes. The Illinois Department of Public Health requires the well to be sampled annually for VOCs and for other contaminants as scheduled (Water System ID IL3121418). The VOC analytical results for 2012 through 2017 for WW441K show no detected VOCs. The 2013 analyses of pesticides, herbicides, semi-volatile organic compounds and metals show no detectable organics and metals concentrations below drinking water standards in the water.

    A second, deeper water supply well is located on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property (WW441L). Well WW441L is an open borehole well from 330 ft-bgs to 554 ft-bgs and is maintained as a backup well for fire protection. Based on other Site information and data, well WW441L is also not expected to be impacted by Site-related contamination. Additional information about wells WW441K and WW441L is provided in the Technical Memorandum: Paperchine Investment Group LLC Water Supply Wells at Beloit Corp. NPL Site, June 2017, Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0284.

    Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

    The only O&M required for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property is to maintain and monitor upgradient groundwater monitoring wells on the property as needed, and to maintain, monitor and enforce the ROD-required IC.

    PPC filed a Uniform Environmental Covenant, pursuant to the Illinois Uniform Environmental Covenants Act [UECA, 765 Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 122] on the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003, with the Winnebago County Recorder's Office on February 7, 2013, Instrument 20131006292. A copy of the recorded Environmental Covenant (EC) is in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011-0276 in the Docket.

    PPC's EC: (1) Restricts or limits the use of the land to industrial land use; (2) prohibits the construction of new or non-existing wells or consumptive use of the groundwater underlying the property; (3) prohibits any activity that may interfere with or would affect the integrity or the configuration of the RA at the Site, or the operation and maintenance of any RA component; and (4) grants authorized representatives of IEPA and EPA the right to enter and have continued access to the Site at reasonable times to perform the RA. The covenant “runs with the land” and remains in effect until the contaminated groundwater at the Site is restored to the more stringent of either the federal MCLs or State of Illinois Class I groundwater standards for all contaminants of concern. Similar ICs will be placed on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property. IEPA is also in the process of establishing a Groundwater Management Zone to prevent the use of contaminated groundwater in other Site areas beyond the former Beloit Corp. property.

    Other O&M at the Site includes IEPA's operation of the groundwater treatment system on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property and semi-annual groundwater monitoring at 21 groundwater monitoring locations. Eight of the groundwater monitoring locations have nested wells screened at different elevations within the aquifer to monitor the groundwater at different depths. IEPA's groundwater monitoring indicates that the contaminant plume has stabilized and that the contaminated groundwater is not moving off-Site. IEPA samples nearby residential wells every two years to ensure that the groundwater containment system continues to be protective. The concentrations of contaminants in private residential wells have been below MCLs since 2001.

    Five-Year Review

    EPA and IEPA conducted the first statutory five-year review (FYR) at the Beloit Corp. Site under Section 121(c) of CERCLA on September 27, 2013. A FYR evaluates whether the remedial action at a site remains protective of human health and the environment at sites where contaminants remain on-site at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

    The FYR Report determined that a protectiveness determination could not be made at the Site without further information to assess the potential for vapor intrusion into nearby residences and commercial properties, and updated groundwater modeling. The issues and recommendations in the FYR Report did not apply to the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, which is upgradient from the source area of the groundwater contamination at the Site and is not subject to vapor intrusion concerns.

    IEPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment and updated the Site groundwater model to address the issues in the FYR Report. The vapor intrusion assessment determined that the Site does not pose a risk to Site workers or nearby residents through the vapor intrusion pathway. The updated Site groundwater model capture zone analysis demonstrates that the groundwater contamination in the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property source area of the Site is being captured and treated by the expanded groundwater pump and treat system required by the 2007 ESD.

    EPA issued a FYR Addendum documenting that the Site is currently protective of human health and the environment on January 25, 2018. The FYR Addendum also determined that in order for the Site to be protective over the long-term an EC must be implemented on the Former Beloit Corp. Manufacturing Property, a GMZ must be implemented in Site areas beyond the Former Beloit Corp. property, and an institutional controls action plan and long-term stewardship plan for monitoring and maintaining ICs need to be implemented. The next FYR is scheduled to be completed by September 27, 2018.

    Community Involvement

    EPA and IEPA satisfied public participation activities for the Site required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. IEPA has actively engaged the Rockton community about the Beloit Corp. Superfund Site since the 1980s. IEPA held public meetings and availability sessions about the Site throughout the RI/FS at the Talcott Free Library and the Hononegah High School. These forums allowed citizens, local officials and the media to learn about the Site, ask questions and express their concerns directly to IEPA community involvement and technical staff. IEPA announced all meetings and availability sessions to the public in local newspaper advertisements and IEPA fact sheets prior to the meetings.

    IEPA developed and distributed four fact sheets about the Site throughout the RI/FS. The fact sheets provided information about the residential well sampling, the environmental investigations, Site updates, public meeting announcements, the proposed plan, new documents and reports added to the information repository, the start and completion of cleanup actions, schedule delays and the establishment of the Administrative Record.

    IEPA published three weekly notices about its proposed cleanup plan for the Site in the Rockton Herald in 2004 prior to issuing the ROD. The notices included information about the 30-day public comment period and the public meeting. IEPA mailed a proposed plan fact sheet summarizing the proposed cleanup plan and the other cleanup alternatives that were considered, to citizens, the media, and local officials prior to selecting a final cleanup plan in the 2004 ROD. The fact sheet also announced and included information about the public comment period and the public meeting. IEPA extended the public comment period for the proposed plan period by 30 days in response to a citizen request. IEPA responded to 26 questions and comments about the Site and the proposed cleanup plan in a responsiveness summary that is attached to the ROD.

    IEPA published a notice announcing the 2013 FYR and inviting the public to comment and express their concerns about the Site at the start of the FYR. IEPA published these notices in the Rockton Herald and the Rockford Register Star.

    EPA published notices announcing this proposed Direct Final Partial Deletion in the Rockton Herald and the Rockford Register Star prior to publishing this deletion in the Federal Register. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on to support this partial deletion of the Site from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories and at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property portion of the Beloit Corp. Site, PIN 03-12-452-003, meets all of the site deletion requirements specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions for this property required by the 2004 ROD and 2007 ESD (i.e., the IC) have been implemented. The RI determined that the groundwater below the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property is upgradient of, and is not affected, by the groundwater contamination at the Site, and that the groundwater below the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property already meets cleanup levels. IEPA's updated capture zone analysis in 2013, and sampling at the deep, water supply well in the lower aquifer on the property required by the Illinois Department of Public Health, provide additional confirmation that the groundwater below the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property is not contaminated and that this portion of the Site does not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, EPA has determined that no further Superfund response is necessary to protect human health or the environment at the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property.

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a Superfund site or a portion of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Illinois, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented at the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property portion of the Beloit Corp. Site, PIN 03-12-452-003, and that no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate on this property.

    V. Partial Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Illinois through the IEPA, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA at the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003, other than maintenance and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells and ICs, and five-year reviews, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property, PIN 03-12-452-003, of the Beloit Corp. Site from the NPL.

    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 14, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 15, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Partially Delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: 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.

    Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the listing under Illinois for “Beloit Corp.” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes (a) *         *         *         *         *         *         * IL Beloit Corp. Rockton P *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (a) * * *

    P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

    [FR Doc. 2018-15144 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 21 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0091; FF09M21200-189-FXMB12320900000] RIN 1018-BC12 Migratory Bird Permits; Removal of Depredation Orders for Double-Crested Cormorants To Protect Aquaculture Facilities and Public Resources AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that vacated provisions of regulations governing control of depredating double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities and for control of double-crested cormorants to protect public resources. Pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia order dated May 25, 2016, this rule removes regulatory provisions that allowed take of double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities and to protect public resources without the need for a permit.

    DATES:

    This action is effective July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2017-0091.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ken Richkus, Acting Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-3803, telephone (703) 358-1780. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is delegated the primary responsibility of conserving migratory birds through protection, restoration, and management. This delegation is authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and Russia. We implement the provisions of the MBTA through regulations in parts 10, 13, 20, 21, and 22 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

    Regulations pertaining to migratory bird permits are at 50 CFR part 21. Subpart D of part 21 contains regulations for the control of depredating birds. Depredation and control orders authorize the take of specific species of migratory birds for specific purposes without a Federal depredation permit, as long as the control and depredation actions comply with the regulatory requirements of the order.

    The two depredation orders at issue in this final rule—the Aquaculture Depredation Order (“AQDO”), at 50 CFR 21.47, and the Public Resource Depredation Order (“PRDO”), at 50 CFR 21.48 (collectively, the “Orders”)—have been reissued every 5 years since their initial promulgation in 1998 and 2003, respectively. The AQDO was adopted by the Service in 1998 in response to complaints that the fish-eating habits of the cormorants were becoming increasingly costly to aquaculture and other industries. The AQDO authorized “landowners, operators, and tenants actually engaged in the production of commercial freshwater aquaculture stocks (or their employees or agents)” in certain States to take cormorants “when found committing or about to commit depredations to aquaculture stocks” (63 FR 10550, March 4, 1998). The authority granted by the AQDO would “automatically expire on April 30, 2005, unless revoked or specifically extended prior to that date.”

    In 1999, in response to continued complaints, the Service issued a notice of intent to develop a national cormorant plan. See Migratory Bird Permits; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and National Management Plan for the Double-Crested Cormorant (64 FR 60826, November 8, 1999). In 2003 the agency issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS), which presented six alternatives for the management of double-crested cormorants: (1) No action (continuation of existing management practices); (2) only nonlethal management techniques; (3) expansion of existing management policies; (4) a new depredation order; (5) reduction of regional cormorant populations; and (6) frameworks for a cormorant hunting season. See Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management (68 FR 58022, October 8, 2003). The EIS recommended the fourth of these alternatives: Issuance of a new depredation order. Accordingly, the Service promulgated the PRDO, which authorized State fish and wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and State Directors of the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to “take,” without a permit, cormorants found committing or about to commit depredations on the public resources of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Both orders, issued in 2003, would expire on April 30, 2009.

    In 2009, the two depredation orders were reissued for another 5 years. See Migratory Bird Permits; Revision of Expiration Dates for Double-Crested Cormorant Depredation Orders (74 FR 15394, April 6, 2009). Finally, in 2014, both orders were reissued until June 30, 2019. See Migratory Bird Permits; Extension of Expiration Dates for Double-Crested Cormorant Depredation Orders (79 FR 30474, May 28, 2014). The 2014 final rule was accompanied by an environmental assessment (EA).

    On May 25, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the two depredation orders (Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 189 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016)). The Court concluded that the Service failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the 2014 EA and directed the Service to take “a hard look” at the effects of the depredation orders on double-crested cormorant populations and other affected resources. Finally, the Court ordered that the Service perform a new and legally adequate EA or EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Administrative Procedure

    This rulemaking is necessary to comply with the May 25, 2016, court order. Therefore, under these circumstances, we have determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are impractical and unnecessary. Public opportunity for comment is simply not required when an agency amends a regulation to comply with a court order. When an agency removes regulatory provisions set aside by a court order, that action is ministerial in nature and allows for no discretion on the part of the agency.

    We have further determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that the agency has good cause to make this rule effective upon publication, which is to comply with the District Court's order as soon as practicable.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    Regulation Promulgation

    To comply with the court order and mandate discussed above, we amend subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

    PART 21—MIGRATORY BIRD PERMITS 1. Remove the second authority citation for part 21. 2. The remaining authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 703-712.

    §§ 21.47 and 21.48 [Removed and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve §§ 21.47 and 21.48. Dated: June 15, 2018. Susan Combs, Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15103 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    83 136 Monday, July 16, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No.: FAA-2018-0653-; Notice No. 18-04] RIN 2120-AK89 Yaw Maneuver Conditions—Rudder Reversals AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to add a new load condition to the design standards for transport category airplanes. The new load condition would require the airplane be designed to withstand the loads caused by rapid reversals of the rudder pedals and would apply to transport category airplanes that have a powered rudder control surface or surfaces. This rule is necessary because accident and incident data show that pilots sometimes make rudder reversals during flight, even though such reversals are unnecessary and discouraged by flightcrew training programs. The current design standards do not require the airplane structure to withstand the loads that may result from such reversals. If the airplane loads exceed those for which it is designed, the airplane structure may fail, resulting in catastrophic loss of control of the airplane. This proposal aims to prevent structural failure of the rudder and vertical stabilizer that may result from these rudder reversals.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number [Insert docket number from heading] using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concerning this action, contact Robert C. Jones, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems Section, AIR-672, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3182; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General Requirements.” Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It prescribes new safety standards for the design of transport category airplanes.

    I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    The FAA proposes to add a new load condition to the design standards in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. The new load condition, to be located in new proposed § 25.353, would require that the airplane be designed to withstand the loads caused by rapid reversals of the rudder pedals. Specifically, applicants would have to show that their proposed airplane design can withstand an initial full rudder pedal input, followed by three rudder reversals at the maximum sideslip angle, followed by return of the rudder to neutral. Due to the rarity of such multiple reversals, the proposed rule would specify the new load condition is an ultimate load condition rather than a limit load condition. Consequently, the applicant would not have to apply an additional factor of safety to the calculated load levels.1

    1 The terms “limit,” “ultimate,” and “factor of safety” are specified in § 25.301, “Loads,” § 25.303, “Factor of safety,” and § 25.305, “Strength and deformation.” To summarize, design loads are typically expressed in terms of limit loads, which are then multiplied by a factor of safety, usually 1.5, to determine ultimate loads. In this proposal, the design loads would be expressed as ultimate loads, and no additional safety factor would be applied.

    The proposed rule would affect manufacturers of transport category airplanes applying for a new type certificate after the effective date of the final rule. The proposed rule may also affect applicants applying for an amended or supplemental type certificate as determined under 14 CFR 21.101 after the effective date of the final rule. Proposed § 25.353 would apply to transport category airplanes that have a powered rudder control surface or surfaces, as explained in the “Discussion of the Proposal.”

    II. Background A. Statement of the Problem

    Accident and incident data from the events described in section II.B.1 show pilots sometimes make multiple and unnecessary rudder reversals during flight. In addition, FAA-sponsored research 2 indicates that pilots use the rudder more often than previously thought and often in ways not recommended by manufacturers. Section 25.1583(a)(3)(ii) requires manufacturers to provide documentation that warns pilots against making large and rapid control reversals as they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below the design maneuvering speed (VA). Despite the requirement, and though such rudder reversals are unnecessary and discouraged by flightcrew training programs, these events continue to occur (see section II.B.1, “History—Accidents and Incidents” below).

    2 Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/14, “An International Survey of Transport Airplane Pilots' Experiences and Perspectives of Lateral/Directional Control Events and Rudder Issues in Transport Airplanes (Rudder Survey),” dated October 2010, is available in the Docket and on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201014.pdf.

    Section 25.351, the standard for protecting the airplane's vertical stabilizer from pilot-commanded maneuver loads, only addresses single, full rudder inputs at airspeeds up to the design diving speed (VD).3 This design standard does not protect the airplane from the loads imposed by repeated inputs in opposing directions, or rudder reversals.4 If the loads on the vertical stabilizer exceed those for which it is designed, the vertical stabilizer may fail, resulting in the catastrophic loss of airplane control.

    3 VD is the design diving speed: The maximum speed at which the airplane is certified to fly. See 14 CFR 1.2. Advisory Circular 25-7C provides additional information related to VD.

    4 A rudder reversal is a continuous, pilot-commanded pedal movement starting from pedal displacement in one direction followed by pedal displacement in the opposite direction.

    Incidents and accidents related to rudder reversals have occurred in the past, and the FAA believes that another such event could occur, resulting in injuries to occupants or a structural failure that jeopardizes continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.

    B. History 1. Accidents and Incidents

    Rudder reversals have caused a number of accidents and incidents. On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 (AA587), an Airbus Model A300-600 series airplane, crashed at Belle Harbor, New York, resulting in 265 deaths and the loss of the airplane. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. The NTSB also noted that contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.5

    5 Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, “In-flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer, American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Industrie A300-605R, N14053, Belle Harbor, New York, November 12, 2001,” dated October 26, 2004, is available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0404.pdf.

    In two additional events—commonly known as the Interflug incident 6 and Miami Flight 903 accident (AA903) 7 —the vertical stabilizer of each airplane experienced loads above the ultimate load level due to pedal reversals commanded by the pilot after the airplane stalled.8 While none of the passengers and crew were injured in the Interflug incident, a passenger was seriously injured and a crewmember sustained minor injuries in the AA903 accident. The AA903 airplane also sustained sheared fasteners, deformed nacelles, and engine component damage, but landed safely. A catastrophe similar to AA587 was averted in each of these events because the vertical stabilizer was stronger than required by the design standards.9

    6 On February 11, 1991, an Airbus Model A310 series airplane experienced in-flight loss of control over Moscow, Russia.

    7 On May 12, 1997, an Airbus Model A300-600 series airplane experienced in-flight loss of control near West Palm Beach, Florida, after the flightcrew failed to recognize that the airplane had entered a stall.

    8 The Interflug and Miami Flight 903 events are discussed in NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, pp. 103-110. See footnote 5 on p. 6.

    9 FCHWG Recommendation Report, “Rudder Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal,” dated November 7, 2013, is available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TAEfch-rpsrr-3282011.pdf. See p. 5 of the report.

    Other rudder reversal events have occurred more recently. On January 10, 2008, an Airbus Model 319-114 series airplane, operated as Air Canada Flight 190 (AC190), encountered a wake vortex while at cruise altitude over Washington State.10 The pilot responded with inputs that included six rudder reversals. The flightcrew eventually stabilized the airplane and diverted to an airport capable of handling the injured passengers.

    10 TSB Aviation Investigation Report A08W0007, “Encounter with Wake Turbulence,” is available in the Docket and on the internet at http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08w0007/a08w0007.pdf.

    The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this event, along with NTSB accredited representatives, and classified it as an accident. Analysis by the TSB showed that the pilot's actions resulted in a load on the vertical stabilizer that exceeded its limit load by approximately 29 percent. The TSB found that the flightcrew was startled by wake turbulence at that altitude, erroneously believed that the airplane had malfunctioned, and therefore responded with erroneous actions. The pilot had received training to avoid rudder reversals.

    On May 27, 2005, a Bombardier DHC-8-100 series airplane, operated by Provincial Airlines Limited for passenger service, experienced a stall and uncontrolled descent over Canada.11 During climb-out, the indicated airspeed gradually decreased, due to the flightcrew's inadvertent selection of an incorrect autopilot mode. The airplane stalled at an unexpectedly high airspeed, likely due to the formation of ice. The flightcrew's failure to recognize the stall resulted in incorrect control inputs and the loss of 4,200 feet of altitude in approximately 40 seconds before recovery. There were no injuries and the airplane was not damaged. During this event, the pilot commanded a rudder reversal.

    11 TSB Aviation Investigation Report A05A0059. See footnote 10 on p. 7.

    2. New Transport Airplane Programs

    Since the AA587 accident, the FAA has responded to the risk posed by rudder reversals, in part, by requesting that applicants for new type certificates show that their designs are capable of continued safe flight and landing after experiencing repeated rudder reversals. Applicants have been able to show this capability through rudder control laws in flight control systems. Applicants have incorporated these control laws through software and, therefore, added no weight or maintenance cost to the airplanes.

    In 2016, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) began applying special conditions to new airplane certification programs. EASA mandated these special conditions to address the exact risk of rudder reversals explained in this NPRM. The requirements in the EASA special conditions are identical to the requirements proposed in this NPRM.

    3. FAA Survey of Pilots' Rudder Use

    In 2006, the FAA sponsored a survey 12 to better comprehend transport category pilots' understanding and use of the rudder. This survey included transport pilots from all over the world. The FAA's analysis of the survey data found that—

    12 Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/14 (see footnote 2 on p. 5), OMB Control No. 2120-0712.

    • Pilots use the rudder more than previously thought and often in ways not recommended by manufacturers.

    • Pilots make erroneous rudder pedal inputs, and some erroneous rudder pedal inputs include rudder reversals.

    • Even after specific training, many pilots are not aware that they should not make rudder reversals, even below VA. Over the last several years, training and changes to the airplane flight manual (AFM) have directed the pilot to avoid making cyclic control inputs. The rudder reversals that caused the AC190 incident in 2008, and the Provincial Airlines Limited incident in 2005, occurred despite this effort.

    • The survey indicated that pilots in airplane upset situations (e.g., wake vortex encounters) may revert to prior training and make sequential rudder reversals.

    C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Activity

    In 2011, the FAA tasked ARAC to consider the need to add a new flight maneuver load condition to part 25, subpart C, that would ensure airplane structural capability in the presence of rudder reversals and increasing sideslip angles (yaw angles) at airspeeds up to VD. The FAA also tasked ARAC to consider if other airworthiness standards would more appropriately address this concern, such as pedal characteristics that would discourage pilots from making rudder reversals.13 ARAC delegated this task to the Transport Airplane and Engine subcommittee, which assigned it to the Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group (FCHWG).

    13 This notice of ARAC tasking was published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2011 (76 FR 17183).

    The FCHWG was tasked to examine several options to protect the airplane from pilot-commanded rudder reversals. These options included developing new standards for—

    • Loads,

    • Maneuverability,

    • System design,

    • Control sensitivity,

    • Alerting, and

    • Pilot training.

    The FCHWG completed its report in November 2013.14 ARAC and the FAA accepted the report. The report's findings and recommendations guided the formation of this proposal.

    14 FCHWG Recommendation Report, “Rudder Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal,” dated November 7, 2013, is available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/TAEfch-rpsrr-3282011.pdf. See footnote 9 on p. 7.

    While multiple rudder reversals are a very low probability event, they have occurred in service and cannot be ruled out in the future. The FCHWG found that a load condition was the optimal way to protect the airplane from the excessive loads that can result from multiple rudder reversals. The FCHWG recommended a load condition over the other options because it would be a performance-based requirement. The FCHWG noted that this would provide applicants for design approval with the flexibility to determine the best way to meet a load condition.

    D. NTSB Safety Recommendation

    Following the AA587 accident described in section II.B.1 of this NPRM, the NTSB provided safety recommendations to the FAA. The NTSB stated, “For airplanes with variable stop rudder travel limiter systems, protection from dangerous structural loads resulting from sustained alternating large rudder pedal inputs can be achieved by reducing the sensitivity of the rudder control system (for example, by increasing the pedal forces), which would make it harder for pilots to quickly perform alternating full rudder inputs.” In Safety Recommendation A-04-056,15 the NTSB recommended that the FAA modify part 25 to include a certification standard that will ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight envelope, including limits for rudder pedal sensitivity.

    15 NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-056 is available in the Docket and on the internet at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A04_56_62.pdf.

    This proposed rule would address this recommendation and, if incorporated on new airplane designs, would reduce the risk of an event similar to AA587. The proposed rule would also respond to the NTSB's concern about rudder pedal sensitivity.

    E. Other Regulatory Actions 1. 2010 Revisions to § 25.1583

    During its investigation of the AA587 accident, the NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes mistakenly believed that, as long as the airplane's speed is below VA, they can make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to the airplane. AA587 exposed the fact that this assumption is incorrect. As a result, the NTSB recommended that the FAA amend its regulations to clarify that operating at or below VA does not provide structural protection against multiple, full control inputs in one axis, or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same time.16 After making its own assessment, the FAA agreed, and revised § 25.1583(a)(3) at Amendment 25-130, effective October 15, 2010.

    16 NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-60 is available in the Docket and on the internet at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_56_62.pdf.

    Section 25.1583(a)(3) was revised to change the information that applicants must furnish in the AFM explaining the use of VA to pilots. The amendment clarified that, depending on the particular airplane design, flying at or below VA does not allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without endangering the airplane's structure. However, the AC190 accident shows that even a properly trained pilot might make rudder reversals when startled or responding to a perceived failure.

    2. Airworthiness Directives

    In 2012, the FAA adopted an airworthiness directive (AD) applicable to all Airbus Model A300-600 and Model A310 series airplanes.17 The AD was prompted by the excessive rudder pedal inputs and consequent high loads on the vertical stabilizer in the events described previously, including AA587. The AD required operators to either incorporate a design change to the rudder control system or other systems, or install a modification that alerts the pilot to stop making rudder inputs.

    17 AD 2012-21-15 was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2012 (77 FR 67526). For more information, see Docket No. FAA-2011-0518 on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    In 2015, the FAA adopted an AD applicable to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.18 That AD was prompted by a determination that, in specific flight conditions, the allowable load limits on the vertical stabilizer could be reached and possibly exceeded. Exceeding allowable load could result in detachment of the vertical stabilizer. The AD also required a modification that alerts the pilot to stop making rudder inputs.

    18 AD 2015-23-13 was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2015 (77 FR 67526). For more information, see Docket No. FAA-2011-0518 on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    F. Advisory Material

    The FAA has developed proposed Advisory Circular (AC) 25.353-X, “Design Load Conditions for Rudder Control Reversal,” to be published concurrently with this NPRM. This proposed AC would provide guidance material on acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with proposed § 25.353. The FAA will post the proposed AC on the “Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment” web page at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. 19 The FAA requests that you submit comments on the proposed AC through that web page.

    19 The proposed AC is also available in the Docket. To ensure the FAA receives your comments on the proposed AC, please submit them via the instructions found on the “Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for Comment” web page.

    III. Discussion of the Proposal

    The FAA proposes to revise 14 CFR by adding new § 25.353 to add a design load condition. It would apply to transport category airplanes that have a powered rudder control surface or surfaces, as explained later in this section. The load condition would require that the airplane be able to withstand three full reversals of the rudder pedals at the most critical points in the flight envelope. From a neutral position, the pedal input would be sudden and to one side and held; then, as the maximum sideslip angle is reached, the pedals would be suddenly displaced in the opposite direction and held until the opposite angle is reached; then again to the first side; then again to the second side; then suddenly moved back to the neutral position.

    The reason for this proposal is that pilots make inadvertent and erroneous rudder pedal inputs, and the accident and incident data show that the loads caused by rudder reversals can surpass the airplane's structural limit load and sometimes its ultimate load. Compliance with the proposed rule would require a showing that the airplane's vertical stabilizer and other airplane structure are strong enough to withstand the rudder reversals.

    Ten of the eleven members of the FCHWG recommended proposing some form of a new load condition to protect the airplane against rudder reversals. During discussions, five members of the FCHWG 20 recommended requiring a load condition that would protect the airplane from three, sequential, full rudder reversals. This notice puts forth those proposals.

    20 The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), EASA, National Civil Aviation Agency—Brazil (ANAC), and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), and FAA representatives.

    Five members of the FCHWG 21 recommended a similar load condition, which would only protect against a single reversal of the rudder pedals. The FAA is not proposing this alternative because a new rule that only includes a single rudder reversal, with a safety factor of 1.0, would not materially increase the design load level from current design loads criteria and would not be effective in preventing accidents such as the AA587 accident.

    21 Airbus, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault Aviation, and Embraer.

    One member, The Boeing Company (Boeing), took the position that no new rulemaking or design standards are required, and that the risk from rudder reversals should be addressed by flightcrew training. Boeing stated that rudder reversals are always inappropriate and that pilots should never make such commands. Boeing argued it is inappropriate to issue an airworthiness standard to mitigate a situation caused by actions that pilots should avoid. The FAA rejects this alternative because, while multiple rudder reversals are a very low probability event, they have been seen in service, despite training, and cannot be ruled out in the future.

    As indicated previously, yaw maneuver loads are currently specified in § 25.351, “Yaw maneuver conditions.” The FAA used this requirement as a template to develop the proposed new rudder reversal design load condition. Therefore, the proposed load condition would be similar to the load condition required by § 25.351, except as follows:

    • Section 25.351 specifies a single, full-pedal command followed by a sudden pedal release after the airplane has reached the steady-state sideslip angle. Proposed § 25.353 would specify a single, full-pedal command followed by three rudder reversals, and return to neutral.

    • In the proposed rule, the rudder reversals must be performed at the maximum sideslip angle, which is referred to as the “overswing sideslip angle.” This term is also used in § 25.351 and would have the same meaning. The overswing sideslip angle is the maximum sideslip angle that occurs following full rudder pedal input and includes the additional sideslip that may occur beyond the steady-state sideslip angle.

    • The § 25.353 load requirement would be an ultimate design load condition, instead of a limit load condition as in § 25.351. This means that applicants would apply a safety factor of 1.0, rather than 1.5. The proposed rudder reversal maneuver would cover the worst-case rudder maneuver expected to occur in service. Because service history has shown that three full rudder reversals are unusual, the FAA proposes that a safety factor of 1.0 is appropriate.

    • The proposed § 25.353 condition would require only that the applicant account for the rudder reversals at speeds up to the design cruising speed (VC). In contrast, § 25.351 requires applicants to account for speeds up to VD. The reason for this difference is that VC represents the majority of the flight envelope, and compliance to VD is not necessary due to the infrequency of exposure to such speeds and the low probability that a rudder reversal will occur at speeds above VC.

    • Section 25.351 requires a pilot force of up to 300 pounds, depending on the airplane's speed. In contrast, the pilot force specified in § 25.353 would be limited to 200 pounds because it would be difficult, and therefore very unlikely, for a pilot to maintain 300 pounds of force while performing rapid alternating inputs.

    • The proposed § 25.353 condition would be evaluated only with the landing gear retracted and speed brakes (and spoilers when used as speed brakes) retracted. This is because flight loads would be more severe with the gear and speed brakes retracted.

    A. Expected Methods of Compliance

    The proposed rule is performance-based. For example, an applicant could choose to comply with the proposed standard by using control system architecture and control laws to limit the airplane response to rudder reversals, and thereby reduce structural loads on the airplane. An applicant could also choose to comply by increasing the capability of the airplane to withstand the maximum expected structural loads that could result from the proposed load condition.

    B. Proposed Applicability

    After examining all the data and considering stakeholder opinions, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule should apply to new type certification programs of transport category airplane designs and to amended or supplemental type certificate programs as determined under § 21.101. The proposed rule would affect manufacturers of transport category airplanes. In the future, applicants who want to certify new airplanes under part 25 would have to comply with proposed § 25.353.

    As noted previously, this proposed rule would apply only to airplanes that use powered rudder control surfaces. In this proposed rule, a powered rudder control surface is one in which the force required to deflect the surface against the airstream is generated or augmented by hydraulic or electric systems. An unpowered rudder control surface is one for which the force required to deflect the surface against the airstream is transmitted from the pilot's rudder pedal directly through mechanical means, without any augmentation from hydraulic or electrical systems. Powered rudder control systems include fly-by-wire (FBW) and hydro-mechanical systems. Unpowered rudder control systems are also referred to as mechanical systems. Incorporation of a powered yaw damper into an otherwise unpowered rudder control system does not constitute a powered rudder control surface, for the purpose of this proposed rule. The reasons that the FAA proposes to exclude airplanes with unpowered (mechanical) rudder control surfaces are as follows, and the FAA seeks comment on these reasons:

    1. The only U.S. transport category airplane models, currently in production, that use unpowered rudder control surfaces are small business jets. Small airplanes typically have a minimal delay between pilot yaw control inputs and airplane response. The pilots of these airplanes receive more immediate feedback of airplane response to their yaw control inputs and, therefore, are less likely to execute inappropriate pedal movements resulting in rudder reversals.

    2. The only U.S. transport category airplane models, currently in production, that use an unpowered rudder control surface are also equipped with a yaw damper. The FAA has assessed the design of this yaw damper and determined its normal operation would be adequate to reduce yaw overshoot loads resulting from rudder reversals to acceptable levels. However, the yaw damper system on these airplanes is not required to be operational on any given flight. The yaw damper is included in these airplanes primarily to improve ride quality for passenger comfort (as opposed to providing adequate stability about the yaw axis to ensure airplane safety). Since the yaw damper may not be available on a given flight, the manufacturer of these airplanes has stated it might need to add structure or an improved yaw damper to any new type certificated airplanes to comply with the proposed rule.22 This would significantly increase design, production, and operation costs. The FAA considers that, for these airplanes, the cost to comply with the proposed, new load condition through structural modification is not justified by the relatively low risk these airplanes face from rudder reversals. Further, the FAA considers it unlikely that many of these airplanes would fly for extended periods without an operable yaw damper that provides acceptable ride quality. Therefore, most of these airplanes have protection against yaw overshoot loads, even if they are not required to demonstrate this protection during certification.

    22 A record of this conversation between the FAA and airplane manufacturer is available in the Docket.

    3. The use of unpowered rudder control surfaces is diminishing in the transport category airplane fleet. The FAA expects that most, if not all, new type certificate applications to which this proposed rule would apply will employ powered rudder control surfaces.

    4. The FAA has reviewed the accident and incident records and has found no events in which pilots commanded inappropriate rudder reversals on airplanes with unpowered rudder control surfaces. This alone does not mean such systems cannot be affected by pilot-commanded inappropriate rudder reversals. However, the absence of any previous incidents indicates that excluding these designs would not appreciably increase the future risk of such events above acceptable levels.

    C. Summary

    The proposed design criteria would provide a practical, relatively low-cost solution that would be achievable on future designs without the requirement to significantly strengthen the vertical stabilizer, or make significant changes to system design. In fact, some current airplanes would be able to meet the proposed criteria with no changes whatsoever. This proposal should require a minimal increment of applicant resources to show compliance. While an applicant might choose to comply with this performance-based standard by strengthening the airplane structure, the FAA believes that most applicants would use control laws to comply with this proposed rule. These control laws are a part of the flight control computer, and they adjust control surface deflections based on pilot input and other factors like airspeed. Since control laws are typically implemented through systems and software, there would be little to no incremental cost in the form of weight, equipment, maintenance, or training.

    IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.

    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed rule has benefits that justify its costs and is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. The rule is also not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, and will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

    A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Department of Transportation Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

    1. Background

    The genesis of this proposed rule is the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 (AA587), near Queens, New York, on November 12, 2001, resulting in the death of all 260 passengers and crew aboard, and the death of five persons on the ground. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire.

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the probable cause of the accident was “the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer [airplane fin] as a result of loads above ultimate design created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs.” 23 Ultimate loads on the airplane structure are the limit loads (1.0) multiplied by a safety factor, usually 1.5 (as for the vertical stabilizer). An airplane is expected to experience a limit load once in its lifetime and is never expected to experience an ultimate load.24 For the AA587 accident, loads exceeding ultimate loads ranged from 1.83 to 2.14 times the limit load on the vertical stabilizer,25 as a result of four, full, alternating rudder inputs known as “rudder reversals.”

    23 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, p. 160. See footnote 5 on p. 6.

    24 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, p. 31, n. 53.

    25 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, p. 104.

    Significant rudder reversals events are unusual in the history of commercial airplane flight, having occurred during just five notable accidents and incidents, with AA587 being the only catastrophic accident resulting from rudder reversals.26 Ultimate loads were exceeded in two of the other notable rudder reversal accidents, the Interflug incident (Moscow, February 11, 1991) and American Airlines Flight 903 (AA903) (near West Palm Beach, Florida, May 12, 1997).27 For the Interflug incident, with multiple rudder reversals, loads of 1.55 and 1.35 times the limit load were recorded; and for AA903 (eight rudder reversals), a load of 1.53 times the limit load was recorded.28 A catastrophe similar to AA587 was averted in these two events only because the vertical stabilizer was stronger than required by design standards.29 In a fourth event—Air Canada Flight 190 (AC190) (over the state of Washington, January 10, 2008)—with four rudder reversals, the limit load was exceed by 29 percent.

    26 FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group. Rudder Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal Recommendation Report, Nov. 7, 2013. (ARAC Rudder Reversal Report). This Report identifies four notable rudder events to which we add the Interflug incident discussed in the NTSB AA587 Report.

    27 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, pp. 106-109.

    28 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, pp. 104.

    29 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-04/04, pp. 38-39.

    In transport category airplanes, rudder inputs are generally limited to aligning the airplane with the runway during crosswind landings and controlling engine-out situations, which occur predominately at low speeds. At high speeds, the pilot normally directly rolls the airplane using the ailerons.30 If the pilot does use the rudder to control the airplane at high speeds, there will be a significant phase lag between the rudder input and the roll response because the roll response is a secondary effect of the yawing moment generated by the rudder.31 The roll does not result from the rudder input directly. Even if the rudder is subsequently deflected in the opposite direction (rudder reversal), the airplane can continue to roll and yaw in one direction before reversing because of the phase lag. The relationship between rudder inputs and the roll and yaw response of the airplane can become confusing to pilots, particularly with the large yaw and roll rates that would result from large rudder inputs, causing the pilots to input multiple rudder reversals.

    30 An aileron is a hinged control service on the trailing edge of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft, one aileron per wing.

    31 The yaw axis is defined to be perpendicular to the wings and to the normal line of flight. A yaw movement is a change in the direction of the aircraft to the left or right around the yaw axis.

    Following the AA587 accident, in November 2004 the NTSB released Safety Recommendation A-04-56 recommending that the FAA modify part 25 “to include a certification standard that will ensure safe handling qualities in the yaw axis throughout the flight envelope. . . .” 32 In 2011, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to consider the need for rulemaking to address the rudder reversal issue. ARAC delegated this task to the Transport Airplane and Engine subcommittee, which assigned it to the Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group (FCHWG). One of the recommendations of the ARAC Rudder Reversal Report, issued on November 7, 2013, was to require transport category airplanes to be able to safely withstand the loads imposed by three rudder reversals. This proposed rule adopts that recommendation. The ARAC report indicates that requiring transport category airplanes to safely operate with the vertical stabilizer loads imposed by three full-stroke rudder reversals accounts for most of the attainable safety benefits. With more than three rudder reversals, the FCHWG found little increase in vertical stabilizer loads.

    32 NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-56, Nov. 10, 2004.

    2. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule

    Since the catastrophic AA587 accident, the FAA has responded to the risk posed by rudder reversals by requesting, through the issue paper process, that applicants for new type certificates show that their designs are capable of continued safe flight and landing after experiencing repeated rudder reversals. For airplanes with FBW systems, manufacturers have been able to show capability by means of control laws, incorporated through software changes and, therefore, adding no weight and imposing no additional maintenance cost to the airplanes. Many if not all of these designs have demonstrated tolerance to three or more rudder reversals. Aside from converting to an FBW system, alternatives available to manufacturers specializing in airplane designs with mechanical or hydro-mechanical rudders include increasing the reliability of the yaw damper and strengthening the airplane vertical stabilizer.

    To estimate the cost of the proposed rule, the FAA solicited unit cost estimates from U.S. industry and incorporated these estimates into an airplane life cycle model. The FAA received one estimate for large part 25 airplanes and two estimates for small part 25 airplanes (business jets).

    One of the business jet estimates was provided by a manufacturer specializing in mechanical rather than FBW rudder systems; therefore, that estimate reflects significantly higher compliance costs. This manufacturer's most cost-efficient approach to addressing the proposed requirement—although high in comparison to manufacturers who use FBW systems exclusively—is to comply with a strengthened vertical stabilizer. The cost of complying with a more reliable yaw damper was higher than strengthening the vertical stabilizer, and higher yet if complying by converting to a FBW rudder system for new models.

    As a result of these high costs and other reasons set forth in the preamble, the FAA has decided that the proposed rule would not apply to airplanes with “unpowered” (mechanical) rudder control surfaces. An “unpowered” rudder control surface is one whose movement is affected through mechanical means, without any augmentation from hydraulic or electrical systems. Accordingly, the proposed rule would not apply to models with mechanical rudder control systems, but would apply only to models with FBW or hydro-mechanical rudder systems. The FAA solicits comments on the exclusion of airplanes with unpowered rudder control surfaces from the proposed rule and the corresponding inclusion of FBW and hydro-mechanical models.

    The FAA estimates the costs of the proposed rule using unit cost per model estimates from industry for FBW models and our estimates of the number of new large airplane and business jet certifications with FBW rudder systems in the ten years after the effective date of the proposed rule. These estimates are shown in table 1. The FAA solicits comments, with detailed cost estimates, on our estimates.

    Table 1—Cost Estimated for Proposed Rule [$ 2016] Cost per model Number of new FBW models
  • (10 yrs)
  • Costs
    Large Airplanes $300,000 2 $600,000 Business Jets 235,000 2 470,000 Total Costs 1,070,000

    With these cost estimates, the FAA finds the proposed rule to be minimal cost, with expected net safety benefits from the reduced risk of rudder reversal accidents.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. As noted above, because manufacturers with FBW rudder systems have been able to show compliance by means of low-cost changes to control laws incorporated through software changes, the FAA estimates the costs of this proposed rule to be minimal. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

    The FAA has assessed the effect of this proposed rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation. Therefore, the proposed rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million.

    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.

    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    (1) In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

    (2) Executive Order 13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

    G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of Order 1050.1E and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    C. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

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

    VI. Additional Information A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential.

    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the internet by—

    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES 1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Add § 25.353 to read as follows:
    § 25.353 Rudder control reversal conditions.

    For airplanes with a powered rudder control surface or surfaces, the airplane must be designed to withstand the ultimate loads that result from the yaw maneuver conditions specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section at speeds from VMC or the highest airspeed for which it is possible to achieve maximum rudder deflection at zero sideslip, whichever is greater, up to VC/MC. The applicant must evaluate these conditions with the landing gear retracted and speed brakes (and spoilers when used as speed brakes) retracted. In computing the loads on the airplane, the applicant may assume yawing velocity to be zero. The applicant must assume a pilot force of 200 pounds when evaluating each of these conditions:

    (a) With the airplane in unaccelerated flight at zero yaw, the flight deck rudder control is displaced as specified in § 25.351(a) and (b).

    (b) With the airplane yawed to the overswing sideslip angle, the flight deck rudder control is suddenly displaced in the opposite direction.

    (c) With the airplane yawed to the opposite overswing sideslip angle, the flight deck rudder control is suddenly displaced in the opposite direction.

    (d) With the airplane yawed to the subsequent overswing sideslip angle, the flight deck rudder control is suddenly displaced in the opposite direction.

    (e) With the airplane yawed to the opposite overswing sideslip angle, the flight deck rudder control is suddenly returned to neutral.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2018. Dorenda D. Baker, Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15154 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4041A, 4245, and 4281 RIN 1212-AB38 Terminated and Insolvent Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Plan Sponsors AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation proposes to amend its multiemployer reporting, disclosure, and valuation regulations to reduce the number of actuarial valuations required for smaller plans terminated by mass withdrawal, add a valuation filing requirement and a withdrawal liability reporting requirement for certain terminated plans and insolvent plans, remove certain insolvency notice and update requirements, and reflect the repeal of the multiemployer plan reorganization rules.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Refer to RIN 1212-AB38 in the subject line.

    Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026.

    All submissions must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and the RIN for this rulemaking (RIN 1212-AB38). All comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website, www.pbgc.gov, including any personal information provided. Copies of comments may also be obtained by writing to Disclosure Division, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026, or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hilary Duke ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4400, extension 3839. (TTY users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400, extension 3839.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Summary—Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This proposed rule would make certain reporting and disclosure of multiemployer information to PBGC and interested parties more efficient and reflect the repeal of the multiemployer plan reorganization rules. The proposal would reduce costs by allowing smaller plans terminated by mass withdrawal to perform actuarial valuations less frequently and by removing certain notice requirements for insolvent plans. This would reduce plan administrative costs and, in turn, may reduce financial assistance provided by PBGC.

    PBGC's legal authority for this action is based on section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA; section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA, which gives PBGC authority to prescribe reporting requirements for terminated plans; section 4245(e) of ERISA, which directs PBGC to prescribe requirements for notices regarding multiemployer plan insolvency; section 4261 of ERISA, which authorizes PBGC to provide financial assistance to insolvent plans, and section 4281(d)(3) of ERISA, which directs PBGC to prescribe requirements for notices to plan participants and beneficiaries in the event of a benefit suspension by an insolvent plan.

    Executive Summary—Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action Plan Sponsor Duties—Annual Valuation and Withdrawal Liability

    The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan terminated by mass withdrawal is responsible for specific duties, including an annual actuarial valuation of the plan's assets and benefits. This proposed rule would reduce administrative burden by allowing the plan sponsor to perform an actuarial valuation only every 5 years if the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less. The proposed rule would add a new requirement for plan sponsors of certain terminated or insolvent plans to file actuarial valuations with PBGC. Where the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less, a plan receiving financial assistance from PBGC would be able to file alternative valuation information.

    The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan also is responsible for determining, giving notice of, and collecting withdrawal liability. The proposal would require plan sponsors of certain terminated or insolvent plans to file with PBGC information about withdrawal liability payments and whether any employers have withdrawn but have not yet been assessed withdrawal liability.

    Insolvency Notices and Updates

    A multiemployer plan terminated by mass withdrawal that is insolvent or is expected to be insolvent for a plan year must provide certain notices to PBGC and participants and beneficiaries. Similarly, a multiemployer plan that is certified by the plan's actuary to be in critical status and that is expected to become insolvent under section 4245 of ERISA must provide certain notices to PBGC and interested parties. Notices include a notice of insolvency and a notice of insolvency benefit level. The proposed rule would eliminate outdated information included in the notices. The proposal would require a plan to provide notices of insolvency if the plan sponsor determines the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year. The proposal also would eliminate the requirement to provide most annual updates to the notices of insolvency benefit level.

    Background

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers two insurance programs for private-sector defined benefit pension plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): A single-employer plan termination insurance program and a multiemployer plan insolvency insurance program. In general, a multiemployer pension plan is a collectively bargained plan involving two or more unrelated employers. This proposed rule deals with multiemployer plans.

    Under section 4041A of ERISA, a mass withdrawal termination of a plan occurs when all employers withdraw or cease to be obligated to contribute to the plan. A plan terminated by mass withdrawal continues to pay all vested benefits from existing plan assets and withdrawal liability payments from withdrawn employers. PBGC's financial assistance to the terminated plan starts only if and when the plan sponsor determines that the plan is insolvent under section 4281(d) of ERISA. PBGC also provides financial assistance to certain plans in critical status that are not terminated or are terminated by plan amendment 1 if the plan sponsor determines that the plan is insolvent under section 4245 of ERISA.

    1 Termination of a multiemployer plan by plan amendment is determined under section 4041A(a)(1) of ERISA.

    Before 2015, financially troubled multiemployer plans entered a “reorganization” status if their funding was below a certain level. Plans in reorganization status were subject to certain rules affecting plan funding, benefits, and reporting and disclosure. The plan sponsor of a plan in reorganization that determined the plan was insolvent or was expected to be insolvent for a plan year was required to provide PBGC and interested parties notices regarding the plan's insolvency. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 established critical and endangered statuses for underfunded plans and provided new tools to help multiemployer plans in those statuses improve plan funding but did not repeal the reorganization rules. Section 108 of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) repealed the rules on reorganization under section 4241 of ERISA effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2014. MPRA also amended the notice requirements under section 4245(e) of ERISA and 418E(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to replace the references to a plan in reorganization with references to a plan in critical status. These amendments did not substantively change the notice requirements.

    This proposed rule would reduce reporting and disclosure requirements for multiemployer plans that are terminated by mass withdrawal or in critical status and that are, or are expected to be, insolvent.2 PBGC identified these proposed amendments as part of its ongoing retrospective review under Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” Executive Order 13563 provides for Federal regulations to use less burdensome means to achieve policy goals, and for agencies to give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. Comments received from one commenter in response to PBGC's July 2017 Request for Information3 support the proposed changes to reduce notice requirements for insolvent plans.

    2 In 2014, PBGC amended its regulations to reduce the number of actuarial valuations required for certain smaller terminated plans and remove certain insolvency notice and update requirements. See 79 FR 30459 (May 28, 2014). This rulemaking is a continuation of that effort to reduce plan burden.

    3 PBGC Regulatory Planning and Review of Existing Regulations, Request for Information (82 FR 34619, July 26, 2017).

    Proposed Regulatory Changes Annual Valuation Requirement

    PBGC's regulation on Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR part 4041A) establishes rules for the administration of multiemployer plans that have terminated by mass withdrawal, including basic duties of plan sponsors of plans terminated by mass withdrawal. Among the requirements, the plan sponsor of a plan terminated by mass withdrawal must value the plan's nonforfeitable benefits and assets as of the last day of the plan year in which the plan terminates and the last day of each plan year thereafter. The details of the annual actuarial valuation requirement are provided in subpart B of PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281).

    The plan sponsor of a plan terminated by mass withdrawal uses the annual actuarial valuation to determine whether the value of nonforfeitable benefits exceeds the value of assets. If benefits exceed assets, the plan may need to reduce benefits. If no benefits are subject to reduction, the plan will continue to make periodic determinations of plan solvency. The proposed rule would revise § 4041A.25 of the multiemployer termination regulation to clarify the timing of the plan sponsor's determinations of plan solvency by combining similar provisions to eliminate repetition and by removing potentially confusing language.

    The plan sponsor of a plan in critical status must also make determinations of plan solvency. If the plan sponsor determines under section 4245(d) of ERISA that the plan is expected to be insolvent for a plan year, the plan must file a notice with PBGC, including a copy of the most recent actuarial valuation for the plan. PBGC uses the annual actuarial valuation to estimate the liabilities PBGC will incur when the plan becomes insolvent and for purposes of its financial statements.

    PBGC is proposing to reduce the number of plans terminated by mass withdrawal that are required to prepare an annual actuarial valuation. Section 4041A.24 of the multiemployer termination regulation provides that if the value of nonforfeitable benefits for a plan terminated by mass withdrawal is $25 million or less as determined for a plan year, the plan sponsor may use the actuarial valuation for the next two years and perform a new actuarial valuation for the third plan year. The proposed rule would increase the threshold requirement for plans and allow them to use less frequent actuarial valuations. A plan would be able to use an actuarial valuation for 5 years if the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less and be in compliance with the statutory requirement that there be an annual written determination of the value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits and the plan's assets.

    If the present value of a plan's nonforfeitable benefits exceeds $50 million, the plan would continue to be required to perform actuarial valuations annually.4 Plans could move in and out of the 5-year or annual valuation cycle, as applicable, as the value of nonforfeitable benefits changes. Thus, a plan that had been using an actuarial valuation for 5 years would be required to perform actuarial valuations annually if the most recent actuarial valuation indicates that the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits exceeds $50 million. Similarly, a plan that had been performing the actuarial valuation annually would be able to use the actuarial valuation for 5 years if the most recent actuarial valuation shows the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits to be $50 million or less.

    4 No valuation is required for a plan year in which the plan is closed out in accordance with subpart D of part 4041A.

    To estimate PBGC's multiemployer plan liabilities, PBGC also is proposing to add the annual actuarial valuation requirement for insolvent plans receiving financial assistance from PBGC (whether terminated or not terminated) and plans terminated by plan amendment that are expected to become insolvent.5 The provision allowing smaller plans to use less frequent actuarial valuations would be available to these plans. In addition, where the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less, a plan receiving financial assistance from PBGC could comply with the actuarial valuation requirement by filing alternative information as specified in valuation instructions on PBGC's website.

    5 Section 4041A.24(a)(2) of PBGC's termination regulation currently excludes plans receiving financial assistance from PBGC from the annual actuarial valuation requirement.

    Summary of Actuarial Valuation Filing Requirements Size of plan according to most recent actuarial valuation Frequency of actuarial
  • valuation: terminated plans
  • and insolvent plans
  • Alternative information
  • permitted to be filed: plans
  • receiving financial assistance
  • Present Value of Plan's Nonforfeitable Benefits is $50 Million or Less Every 5 Years Yes. Present Value of Plan's Nonforfeitable Benefits Exceeds $50 Million Each Year No.

    The proposed amendments would enable PBGC to continue to have reasonably reliable data to measure its liabilities, while reducing burden on plans that present smaller exposure. PBGC currently obtains actuarial valuations for plans receiving financial assistance by contacting plan sponsors. The proposal would require a plan sponsor to file the plan's actuarial valuation with PBGC within 180 days after the end of the plan year for which the actuarial valuation is performed. Having plans file the actuarial valuation or alternative valuation information within the proposed time period would provide for a more efficient process for plans and PBGC. The proposed rule would also make clarifications and other editorial changes to part 4041A.

    Withdrawal Liability Payments

    The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan is required to determine and collect withdrawal liability in accordance with section 4219 of ERISA. The plan sponsor assesses withdrawal liability by issuing a notice to an employer, including the amount of the employer's liability and a schedule of payments. The plan sponsor also must file with PBGC a certification that notices have been provided to employers.6

    6See 29 CFR 4219.17.

    PBGC uses information about withdrawal liability payments and settlements, and whether employers have withdrawn from the plan but have not yet been assessed withdrawal liability, to estimate PBGC's multiemployer liabilities for purposes of its financial statements and to provide financial assistance to plans.7 It is particularly important for PBGC to identify all sources of available funding given the declining financial position of the multiemployer program. As of September 30, 2017, there were 72 insolvent plans that received financial assistance from PBGC and 68 terminated plans not yet receiving financial assistance.8 The number of plans receiving and expected to receive financial assistance led PBGC to examine the way it obtains withdrawal liability information.

    7 PBGC may prescribe reporting requirements for terminated plans under section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA.

    8See PBGC FY 2017 Annual Report, page 94 at https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/pbgc-annual-report-2017.pdf.

    PBGC is proposing that plan sponsors of plans subject to the actuarial valuation requirement (plans terminated by mass withdrawal, plans terminated by plan amendment that are expected to become insolvent, and insolvent plans receiving financial assistance from PBGC (whether terminated or not terminated)), file with PBGC information about withdrawal liability, in the aggregate and by employer, that the plan has or has not yet assessed withdrawn employers. The information would be specified in the withdrawal liability instructions on PBGC's website. For each employer not yet assessed withdrawal liability, information would include the name of the employer and the reasons the employer has not yet been assessed withdrawal liability. For each employer assessed withdrawal liability, information would include the name of the employer and whether there are scheduled periodic payments or there has been a lump-sum settlement. For periodic payments, information would include the start date, end date, frequency of payment (monthly, quarterly, annually), amount of payment, and whether the employer is current on making its payments. For lump sum settlements, information would include the amount and date of payment. To satisfy the filing requirement for employers assessed withdrawal liability, a plan sponsor could choose to file documents already prepared containing the withdrawal liability information for each employer, such as withdrawal liability notices setting forth scheduled payments or withdrawal liability settlement agreements.

    The proposal would require a plan sponsor to file the withdrawal liability information with PBGC within 180 days after the earlier of the end of the plan year in which the plan terminates or becomes insolvent and each plan year thereafter, unless there is no updated information to file. Having plans file the withdrawal liability information electronically and within the proposed time period would provide for an efficient process for plans and PBGC.

    Terminated and Insolvent Plan Notices

    The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan terminated by mass withdrawal must make determinations of insolvency annually in accordance with section 4281 of ERISA and the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan in critical status must make determinations of insolvency in accordance with section 4245(d) of ERISA. When the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan determines that the plan's resources are not sufficient to pay the promised level of benefits stated in the plan when due during the plan year, the plan sponsor must suspend benefits above the amount that assets will cover. However, benefits may not be reduced to an amount less than the PBGC guarantee level. Plans that are not able to pay benefits at the promised level of benefits stated in the plan are required to notify PBGC and plan participants and beneficiaries.

    The notice requirements for plans that have terminated by mass withdrawal are provided under subpart D of PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281). Similar notice requirements are provided for plans that are in critical status under PBGC's regulation on Notice of Insolvency (29 CFR part 4245). Under the latter, in addition to notifying PBGC and participants and beneficiaries, plans must notify other interested parties, including employers required to contribute to the plan and employee organizations that, for collective bargaining purposes, represent participants employed by such employers.

    There are two types of notice that plans must provide: A “notice of insolvency,” stating the plan year that the plan is insolvent or is expected to be insolvent, and a “notice of insolvency benefit level,” stating the level of benefits that will be paid during a plan year in which a plan is insolvent. The proposed rule would require the plan sponsor of a critical status plan or of a plan terminated by mass withdrawal to provide notices of insolvency if it determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year. The proposal also would make the timing of the delivery of the notice of insolvency and the notice of insolvency benefit level the same—by the later of 90 days before the beginning of the insolvency year or 30 days after the date the insolvency determination is made. In addition, the proposal would allow the plan sponsor to provide one combined notice for the same insolvency year.

    PBGC's regulations currently require plan sponsors to provide the notice of insolvency benefit level annually. PBGC's experience has been that virtually all multiemployer plans that become insolvent will remain so. Thus, once a plan sponsor has provided the initial notice of insolvency benefit level, there is little need to require the plan sponsor to provide similar subsequent notices. Consequently, PBGC is proposing to eliminate most of the annual updates to the notices of insolvency benefit level. The plan sponsor would provide updated notices to PBGC and to all participants and beneficiaries only if there is a change in the amount of benefits paid that affects participants and beneficiaries generally. If a participant or beneficiary enters pay status or is reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year, or there is a change in benefit level that affects only one participant or beneficiary or a participant class, a notice would only be required to be provided to PBGC and to each affected person. For example, in the latter case, if a participant enters pay status or a participant's death results in the payment of benefits to the participant's beneficiary, only PBGC and those affected participants and beneficiaries would be provided notices.

    Plan sponsors are required to electronically file notices of termination, notices of insolvency, and notices of insolvency benefit level.9 The proposed rule would move the content requirements for these notices filed with PBGC from the regulations to instructions available on PBGC's website. PBGC generally considers it preferable to describe information to be filed only in the filing instructions, and not in the regulation prescribing the filing, to avoid having two authoritative descriptions of the same requirements and to make it easier for filers to find the information they need in one place. The proposed rule also would make changes to the contents of the notice of insolvency and notice of insolvency benefit level by eliminating outdated information and, consistent with MPRA, by removing references to reorganization in the notice of insolvency regulation. The proposed rule would also make clarifications and other editorial changes to parts 4245 and 4281.

    9 Section 4000.3(b)(4) of PBGC's regulation on Filing, Issuance, Computation of Time, and Record Retention requires, with exceptions, filings to PBGC under parts 4041A, 4245, and 4281 to be made electronically in accordance with the instructions on PBGC's website, except as otherwise provided by PBGC.

    Application for Financial Assistance

    The plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan must apply to PBGC for financial assistance if the plan sponsor determines that the plan's resource benefit level will be below the level of benefits guaranteed by PBGC or that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for any month during the year. Section 4281.47 of PBGC's duties of plan sponsor regulation requires a plan sponsor to file an initial application with PBGC at the same time that it files a notice of insolvency benefit level. When the plan sponsor determines an inability to pay guaranteed benefits for any month, the plan sponsor must file a recurring application within 15 days after the plan sponsor makes the determination. To provide PBGC adequate time to review applications for financial assistance, the proposed rule would require an initial application to be filed no later than 90 days before the first day of the month for which the plan sponsor has determined that the resource benefit level will be below the level of guaranteed benefits. The proposed rule would require a recurring application to be filed as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor determines the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for a month and make other editorial changes. The contents of the applications for financial assistance would be moved from the regulations to instructions on PBGC's website.

    Applicability

    The amendments to §§ 4041A.2, 4041A.12 and 4041A.25 of the multiemployer termination regulation that make changes to the definitions, the content of the notice of termination, and the determination of plan solvency would be applicable as of the effective date of the final rule.

    The amendments to § 4041A.23 of the multiemployer termination regulation and to part 4245 that require plan sponsors to file with PBGC withdrawal liability information would be applicable for plan years ending after the effective date of the final rule.

    The amendments to § 4041A.24 of the multiemployer termination regulation and to part 4245 that change the annual actuarial valuation requirement would be applicable to actuarial valuations prepared for plan years ending after the effective date of the final rule.

    The amendments to part 4245 and part 4281 that make changes to the content and timing of the notices of insolvency and notices of insolvency benefit level and that make changes to the timing of an application for financial assistance would be applicable as of the effective date of the final rule.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

    PBGC has determined that this rulemaking is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13771. Accordingly, this proposed rule is exempt from Executive Order 13771 and OMB has not reviewed the rule under Executive Order 12866.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This proposed rule is associated with retrospective review and analysis in PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review issued in accordance with Executive Order 13563.

    Although this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, PBGC has examined the economic implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that the amendments to the annual actuarial valuation requirements and notice of insolvency and notice of insolvency benefit level would reduce costs for multiemployer plans by approximately $438,000. The analysis is as follows.

    Annual Actuarial Valuation Requirement

    PBGC has estimated the value of this proposed rule for the annual actuarial valuation requirements for plans terminated by mass withdrawal that are not insolvent (assuming an annual actuarial valuation cost of $12,000 per plan for plans whose nonforfeitable benefits have a present value of $25 million or less and cost of $30,000 per plan for plans whose nonforfeitable benefits have a present value in the range of $25 to $50 million.10 ). As of the end of the 2017 fiscal year, there were 68 terminated plans that were not insolvent. Of that total, there were 47 plans whose nonforfeitable benefits have a present value of $25 million or less that will be able to use an actuarial valuation for 5 years instead of 3 years for annual savings of approximately $75,200 (47 × $12,000 × .1333 (1/3-1/5)) and 8 plans whose nonforfeitable benefits have a present value in the range of $25 to $50 million that will be able to use an actuarial valuation for 5 years instead of 1 year for annual savings of approximately $192,000 (8 × $30,000 × .8 (1-1/5)). PBGC estimates annual aggregate savings of approximately $267,200 to these plans.

    10 The cost of an actuarial valuation varies greatly by plan size. Based on plan actuary experience, an actuarial valuation for a smaller plan where the present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or less may cost approximately $10,000 to $35,000.

    As of the end of the 2017 fiscal year, there were 72 insolvent plans. Of that total, there were 15 insolvent plans whose nonforfeitable benefits have a present value exceeding $50 million. As PBGC currently obtains actuarial valuations from these insolvent plans and provides financial assistance for the cost of performing the actuarial valuations, PBGC believes there is no additional cost under this proposed rule for performing insolvent plan actuarial valuations.

    The savings under the proposed rule are offset by the annual cost of the actuarial valuation and alternative valuation filing requirements. PBGC estimates that each year, approximately 40 plans will file actuarial valuations and approximately 10 plans will file alternative valuation information. As discussed below under the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, PBGC estimates an annual aggregate hour burden of 20 hours at an estimated dollar equivalent of $1,500 and an annual aggregate cost burden of $8,000.

    Withdrawal Liability Filing

    Under the proposed rule, PBGC expects to receive withdrawal liability information from approximately 140 plans. As discussed below under the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, PBGC estimates an annual hour burden of 140 hours at an estimated dollar equivalent of $10,500 and an annual cost burden of $56,000.

    Annual Notice Updates

    As discussed below under the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis, PBGC estimates that the annual aggregate cost of preparing the notice of insolvency and notice of insolvency benefit level without the proposed rule, and based on recent plan experience, is approximately $627,400 ($12,000 + $615,400). This estimate is based on an estimated 11 plans required to issue the notice of insolvency and 55 plans required to issue an annual update to the notice of insolvency benefit level. Allowing plans to issue a combined notice and eliminating most of the annual updates to the notice of insolvency benefit level will reduce the cost to $380,400, saving plans approximately $247,000 ($627,400 − $380,400).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the proposed rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.

    Small Entities

    For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this proposed rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is substantially the same criterion PBGC uses in other regulations 11 and is consistent with certain requirements in title I of ERISA 12 and the Code,13 as well as the definition of a small entity that the Department of Labor has used for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.14

    11See, e.g., special rules for small plans under part 4007 (Payment of Premiums).

    12See, e.g., ERISA section 104(a)(2), which permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants.

    13See, e.g., Code section 430(g)(2)(B), which permits plans with 100 or fewer participants to use valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year.

    14See, e.g., Department of Labor's final rule on Prohibited Transaction Exemption Procedures, 76 FR 66637, 66644 (Oct. 27, 2011).

    Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the proposed rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. PBGC therefore requests comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact on small entities of the proposed amendments.

    Certification

    On the basis of its definition of small entity, PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the amendments in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on data for the 2017 fiscal year, PBGC estimates that only 16 small plans of the approximately 1,400 plans covered by PBGC's multiemployer program will be required to file withdrawal liability information and an actuarial valuation or alternative valuation information under the proposed rule. An estimated three small plans will be relieved of the burden to prepare and distribute an annual notice of insolvency benefit level update to participants and beneficiaries. This is not a substantial number of small plans. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604 do not apply.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    PBGC is submitting the information requirements under this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The collection of information in part 4041A is approved under control number 1212-0020 (expires November 30, 2018). Based on recent plan experience, PBGC estimates that the current notice of termination and other requirements in part 4041A have an annual burden of 69 hours and a cost of $50,000, increased from an estimated 17 hours and $3,850.

    PBGC estimates that the proposed changes to file withdrawal liability information electronically would have a minimal hour and cost burden as it is expected that the information would be easily accessible and that most plans would use documents already prepared containing withdrawal liability information. PBGC estimates that approximately 140 plans would file withdrawal liability information and that it would take each plan approximately 2 hours to electronically file the information. PBGC further estimates that the filings would be completed by pension fund office staff (50%) and outside attorneys (50%). The total hour burden would be approximately 140 hours of pension fund office time at an estimated dollar equivalent of $10,500 (based on an assumed hourly rate of $75 for administrative, clerical, and supervisory time). The total cost burden would be approximately $56,000 (based on 140 contracted hours assuming an average hourly rate of $400).

    PBGC expects that an estimated 40 plans (28 plans with nonforfeitable benefits that exceed $50 million plus 12 plans with nonforfeitable benefits of $50 million or less) would file actuarial valuations and that it would take each plan 30 minutes to file the information electronically. PBGC expects that an estimated 10 plans receiving financial assistance from PBGC would file alternative valuation information and that it would take each plan 2 hours to file the information electronically. PBGC further estimates that the filings would be completed by pension fund office staff (50%) and outside attorneys (50%). The total estimated hour burden to file the actuarial valuations and to complete and file the alternative valuation information would be approximately 20 hours of pension fund office time at an estimated dollar equivalent of $1,500 (based on an assumed hourly rate of $75 for administrative, clerical, and supervisory time). The total cost burden would be approximately $8,000 (based on 20 contracted hours assuming an average hourly rate of $400).

    PBGC estimates that without the proposed rule there would be 2,111 notices and responses and that the total annual burden of the collection of information in part 4041A would be about 69 hours and $50,000. PBGC estimates that with the proposed rule there would be 2,301 notices and responses each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information would be an hour burden of about 229 hours for pension fund office time (69+140+20) at an estimated dollar equivalent of $17,175 and a cost burden for work by outside consultants of $114,000 ($50,000+$56,000+$8,000).

    The collection of information in part 4245 is approved under control number 1212-0033 (expires November 30, 2018). PBGC estimates that only 1 plan would issue new notices of insolvency under part 4245 and that each year there would be 1,038 notices or combined notices issued to participants and beneficiaries, PBGC, and other interested parties. PBGC previously estimated that the notices were prepared and distributed by outside consultants and that the annual hour burden was 1 hour and the annual cost burden was $723. Based on recent plan experience, the time to prepare and distribute the notices can vary significantly by plan size. PBGC estimates that without the proposed rule, the annual hour burden would be 20 hours and the annual cost burden would be $12,000. The proposed regulation would reduce the burden by allowing plans to combine the notice of insolvency and the notice of insolvency benefit level and by eliminating most of the annual updates to participants and beneficiaries. PBGC estimates the proposed rule would reduce the annual hour burden to 16 hours of pension fund office time and the annual cost burden for work by outside consultants to $10,000.

    The collection of information in part 4281 is approved under control number 1212-0032 (expires November 30, 2018). PBGC expects to receive the following notices under part 4281: 1 notice of benefit reduction; 10 notices of insolvency; 55 notices of insolvency benefit level; 10 initial applications for financial assistance; and 300 non-initial applications for financial assistance. PBGC's estimates previously assumed that the notices were prepared and distributed by outside consultants. PBGC estimated an annual hour burden of 60 hours and an annual cost burden of $309,020. Based on recent plan experience and information that the notices are distributed by pension fund offices, PBGC estimates an annual hour burden of 1,300 hours and an annual cost burden of $615,400. Under the proposed rule, most of the annual updates to the notice of insolvency benefit level would be eliminated unless there is a change in benefit level. PBGC estimates the proposed change would reduce the number of plans issuing notices of insolvency benefit level from 55 plans to approximately 5 plans. PBGC estimates that 13,826 notices and applications would be issued annually under part 4281. PBGC estimates that the proposed rule would reduce the annual hour burden to 240 hours of pension fund office time and the annual cost burden for work by outside consultants to $370,400.

    List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4041A

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    29 CFR Part 4245

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    29 CFR Part 4281

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons given above, PBGC proposes to amend 29 CFR chapter XL and 29 CFR parts 4041A, 4245, and 4281 as follows:

    PART 4041A—TERMINATION OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4041A is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341a, 1431, 1441.

    2. In § 4041A.2: a. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Actuarial valuation”; b. Amend the definition of “Available resources” by removing “means, for a plan year, available” and adding in its place “means available”; c. Amend the definition of “Benefits subject to reduction” by removing “the PBGC's” and adding in its place “PBGC's”; d. Amend the definition of “Financial assistance” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; e. Amend the definition of “Insolvency benefit level” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; f. Amend the definition of “Insolvent” by removing in the first sentence “that a plan is unable” and adding in its place “unable” and by removing the second sentence; g. Amend the definition of “Nonguaranteed benefits” by removing “the PBGC's” and adding in its place “PBGC's”.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 4041A.2 Definitions.

    Actuarial valuation means a report submitted to a plan of a valuation of plan assets and liabilities that is performed in accordance with subpart B of part 4281 of this chapter.

    § 4041A.11 [Amended]
    3. In § 4041A.11: a. Amend paragraph (a) by removing “A Notice of Termination shall be filed with the PBGC” and adding in its place “A notice of termination must be filed with PBGC”; b. Amend the paragraph heading in paragraph (b) by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must” and the text is amended by removing “shall sign and file the Notice.” and adding in its place “must sign and file the notice.”; c. Amend paragraph (c)(1) by removing “the Notice shall be filed with the PBGC” and adding in its place “the notice must be filed with PBGC”; d. Amend paragraph (c)(2) by removing “the Notice shall be filed with the PBGC” and adding in its place “the notice must be filed with PBGC”; e. Amend paragraph (d) by removing “Filings to PBGC” and adding in its place “Filings with PBGC”. 4. Revise section 4041A.12 to read as follows:
    § 4041A.12 Contents of notice.

    (a) Information to be contained in notice. A notice of termination under § 4041A.11 required to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the instructions for the notice of termination on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (b) Additional information. In addition to the information required under paragraph (a) of this section, PBGC may require the submission of any other information that PBGC determines is necessary for review of a notice of termination.

    § 4041A.21 [Amended]
    5. In § 4041A.21: a. Amend the first sentence by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must”; b. Amend the second sentence by removing “shall be” and adding in its place “is” and by removing “this subpart.” and adding in its place “this subpart C.”; 6. In § 4041A.23: a. Amend the section heading by removing “Imposition and collection of withdrawal liability.” and adding in its place “Withdrawal liability.”; b. Redesignate the text of § 4041A.23 as paragraph (a) with the paragraph heading “Collection of withdrawal liability.”; c. Amend paragraph (a) by removing “shall be responsible for determining, imposing and collecting” and adding in its place “must determine, give notice of, and collect” and by removing “part 4219, subpart C,” and adding in its place “subpart C of part 4219”; d. Add paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 4041A.23 Withdrawal liability.

    (b) Filing of withdrawal liability information. For each employer that has withdrawn from the plan, the plan sponsor must file with PBGC, not later than 180 days after the end of the plan year in which the plan terminates and each plan year thereafter, the information specified in the withdrawal liability instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    7. Revise § 4041A.24 to read as follows:
    § 4041A.24 Plan valuations and monitoring.

    (a) Annual valuation requirement. The plan sponsor of a plan must have actuarial valuations performed in accordance with this section and with subpart B of part 4281.

    (1) Termination year valuation. The plan sponsor of a plan must have an actuarial valuation performed for the plan for the plan year in which the plan terminates.

    (2) High-obligation valuations. If the present value of a plan's nonforfeitable benefits exceeds $50 million according to the most recent actuarial valuation under this paragraph (a), the plan sponsor must have an actuarial valuation performed for the plan for each plan year.

    (3) Low-obligation valuations. If the present value of a plan's nonforfeitable benefits does not exceed $50 million according to the most recent actuarial valuation under this paragraph (a), the plan sponsor may treat that actuarial valuation as the actuarial valuation for each of the four plan years following the plan year for which the actuarial valuation was performed.

    (4) Timing and filing. Each actuarial valuation under this paragraph (a) must be performed within 150 days after the end of the plan year for which it is performed and must be filed with PBGC within 180 days after the end of that plan year in accordance with the valuation instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (5) Exception for plans closing out. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section, no actuarial valuation is required for the plan year in which a plan closes out under subpart D of this part.

    (b) Plan monitoring; benefit reductions—(1) Applicability. This paragraph (b) applies to a plan that is not receiving financial assistance from PBGC for the plan year following the plan year for which an actuarial valuation is performed under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Funding level determination. Upon receipt of each actuarial valuation under paragraph (a) of this section, the plan sponsor must determine whether the value of nonforfeitable benefits exceeds the value of plan assets (including withdrawal liability claims). If it does, then the plan sponsor must—

    (i) Amend the plan to reduce benefits subject to reduction (if any) in accordance with the procedures in subpart C of part 4281 of this chapter to the extent necessary to ensure that the plan's assets are sufficient to discharge when due all of the plan's obligations with respect to nonforfeitable benefits or, if that result cannot be achieved, to the maximum extent possible; and

    (ii) If, after implementing the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the plan's assets are insufficient to discharge when due all of the plan's obligations with respect to nonforfeitable benefits, make determinations of plan solvency in accordance with § 4041A.25.

    (3) Notices of benefit reduction. The plan sponsor of a plan that is amended to reduce benefits under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section must provide participants and beneficiaries and PBGC notice of the benefit reduction in accordance with § 4281.32 of this chapter.

    (c) Alternative method of compliance—(1) Applicability. Paragraph (c) of this section applies to a plan that meets both of the following requirements—

    (i) The plan is receiving financial assistance from PBGC for the plan year following the plan year for which an actuarial valuation is required under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (ii) The present value of the plan's nonforfeitable benefits does not exceed $50 million according to the most recent actuarial valuation under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Alternative compliance requirements. A plan sponsor is considered to comply with the actuarial valuation and filing requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if both—

    (i) The plan sponsor files with PBGC the information in paragraph (c)(3) of this section within the time required for filing the actuarial valuation under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and

    (ii) If, within 90 days after the plan sponsor makes the filing described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, PBGC requests other information reasonably required to determine the plan's assets and liabilities, the plan sponsor files such other information within 60 days after PBGC's request.

    (3) Information to be provided. The information the plan sponsor must file with PBGC under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section is all of the following:

    (i) The most recent summary plan description of the plan or the date the document was previously filed with PBGC.

    (ii) The most recent actuarial valuation of the plan or the date the document was previously filed with PBGC.

    (iii) Information reasonably necessary for PBGC to prepare an actuarial valuation as specified in the valuation instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    8. In § 4041A.25: a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b); b. Amend paragraph (c) by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must”; c. Amend paragraph (d) by removing “If the plan sponsor determines that the plan is, or is expected to be, insolvent for a plan year, it shall” and adding in its place “If the plan sponsor determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year it must” and by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 4041A.25 Periodic determinations of plan solvency.

    (a) Annual insolvency determination. A plan that has no benefits subject to reduction and has assets insufficient to discharge when due all of the plan's obligations with respect to nonforfeitable benefits must make periodic determinations of plan solvency in accordance with this paragraph (a). No later than six months before the beginning of the applicable plan year described in this paragraph (a), or as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor determines the applicable plan year, and no later than six months before each plan year thereafter, the plan sponsor must determine in writing whether the plan is expected to be insolvent for such plan year. The applicable plan year is—

    (1) For a plan that had no benefits subject to reduction when it terminated, the plan year the plan terminated; or

    (2) For a plan that eliminated benefits subject to reduction by amendment after termination, the plan year in which the amendment that eliminated all (or all remaining) benefits subject to reduction is effective.

    (b) Other determination of insolvency. Whether or not a prior determination of plan insolvency has been made under paragraph (a) of this section (or under section 4245 of ERISA), a plan sponsor that has reason to believe, taking into account the plan's recent and anticipated financial experience, that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year must determine in writing whether the plan is or is expected to be insolvent for that plan year.

    SUBCHAPTER J—INSOLVENCY, REORGANIZATION, TERMINATION, AND OTHER RULES APPLICABLE TO MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS 9. Amend the heading for Subchapter J by removing “reorganization,”. PART 4245—NOTICE OF INSOLVENCY 10. The authority citation for part 4245 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341a, 1431, 1426(e).

    11. Revise the heading for Part 4245 to read as follows: PART 4245—DUTIES OF PLAN SPONSOR OF AN INSOLVENT PLAN 12. Revise § 4245.1 to read as follows:
    § 4245.1 Purpose, scope, and filing and issuance rules.

    (a) Purpose and scope. This part prescribes insolvency notice requirements and financial assistance requirements pertaining to critical status plans. Plans that have terminated by mass withdrawal under section 4041A(a)(2) of ERISA are required to file and issue similar insolvency notices under part 4281 of this chapter and withdrawal liability and actuarial valuation information under part 4041A of this chapter.

    (b) Filing and issuance rules.—(1) Method of filing. Filing with PBGC under this part must be made by a method permitted under the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (2) Method of issuance. The issuance of the notice of insolvency benefit level to interested parties must be made by one of the following methods—

    (i) A method permitted under the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (ii) For interested parties other than participants and beneficiaries who are in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given, the plan sponsor may post the notice at participants' work sites or publish the notice in a union newsletter or in a newspaper of general circulation in the area or areas where participants reside. Notice to a participant is deemed notice to that participant's beneficiary or beneficiaries.

    (3) Filing and issuance dates. The date that a filing is sent and the date that an issuance is provided are determined under the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (4) Where to file. Filings with PBGC under this part must be made as described in § 4000.4 of this chapter.

    (5) Computation of time. The time period for filing or issuance under this part must be computed under the rules in subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.

    13. In § 4245.2: a. Revise the definition of “Actuarial valuation”; b. Amend the definition of “Available resources” by removing “means, for a plan year, available” and adding in its place “means available”; c. Amend the definition of “Benefits subject to reduction” by removing “the PBGC's” and adding in its place “PBGC's”; d. Amend the definition of “Financial assistance” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; e. Amend the definition of “Insolvency benefit level” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; f. Amend the definition of “Insolvent” by removing in the first sentence “that a plan is unable” and adding in its place “unable” and by removing the second sentence; g. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Interested parties”; h. Remove the definition of “Reorganization”.

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    § 4245.2 Definitions.

    Actuarial valuation means a report submitted to a plan of a valuation of plan assets and liabilities that is performed in accordance with subpart B of part 4281 of this chapter.

    Interested parties means, with respect to a plan,—

    (1) Employers required to contribute to the plan;

    (2) Employee organizations that, for collective bargaining purposes, represent plan participants employed by such employers; and

    (3) Plan participants and beneficiaries.

    14. Revise § 4245.3 to read as follows:
    § 4245.3 Notice of insolvency.

    (a) Requirement of notice. The plan sponsor of a plan that determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year must file with PBGC a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4245.4(a) and must issue to interested parties a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4245.4(b). Once notices of insolvency with respect to a plan have been provided as required, no notices of insolvency need be provided with respect to the plan for any subsequent plan year. A notice of insolvency may be combined with a notice of insolvency benefit level under § 4245.5 for the same plan year.

    (b) When to provide notice. The plan sponsor must provide the notices of insolvency under paragraph (a) of this section at the time described in § 4281.43(b) of this chapter.

    15. Revise § 4245.4 to read as follows:
    § 4245.4 Contents of notice of insolvency.

    (a) Notice to PBGC. A notice of insolvency under § 4245.3 required to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the notice of insolvency instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (b) Notices to interested parties. A notice of insolvency under § 4245.3 required to be given to interested parties must contain all of the following information—

    (1) The information set forth in § 4281.44(b)(1) through (4) of this chapter.

    (2) The estimated total amount of annual benefit payments under the plan (determined without regard to the insolvency) for the insolvency year.

    (3) The estimated amount of the plan's available resources for the insolvency year.

    16. Revise § 4245.5 to read as follows:
    § 4245.5 Notice of insolvency benefit level.

    (a) Requirement of notice. The plan sponsor of an insolvent plan must file with PBGC and issue to interested parties notices of insolvency benefit level containing the information described in § 4245.6 in each of the following circumstances—

    (1) For the initial insolvency year, provide the notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to interested parties.

    (2) For any insolvency year following the initial insolvency year—

    (i) If there is a change in the insolvency benefit level that affects plan payees generally, provide the notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to plan payees. For purposes of this section, “plan payee” means a participant or beneficiary in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year.

    (ii) If there is a change in the insolvency benefit level that affects only one plan payee or a class of plan payees but not plan payees generally (treating commencement of a person's benefits for this purpose as a change in the insolvency benefit level for that person), provide the notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to each affected plan payee.

    (b) Combined notices. The plan sponsor may combine a notice of insolvency benefit level and a notice of insolvency under § 4245.3 for the same plan year.

    (c) When to provide notice. The plan sponsor must provide the required notices under this section at the time described in § 4281.45(c) of this chapter.

    17. Revise § 4245.6 to read as follows:
    § 4245.6 Contents of notice of insolvency benefit level.

    (a) Notice to PBGC. A notice of insolvency benefit level under § 4245.5(a) required to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the notice of insolvency benefit level instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (b) Notices to interested parties other than participants and beneficiaries in or entering pay status. A notice of insolvency benefit level under § 4245.5(a) required to be delivered to interested parties, other than to a participant or beneficiary who is in pay status or is reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year, must include all of the following information—

    (1) The name of the plan.

    (2) The plan year for which the notice is issued.

    (3) The estimated amount of annual benefit payments under the plan (determined without regard to the insolvency) for the insolvency year.

    (4) The estimated amount of the plan's available resources for the insolvency year.

    (5) The amount of financial assistance, if any, requested from PBGC.

    (c) Notices to participants and beneficiaries in or entering pay status. A notice of insolvency benefit level required by § 4245.5(a) to be delivered to participants and beneficiaries who are in pay status or are reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given must include the information set forth in § 4281.46(b)(1) through (7) of this chapter.

    18. Revise § 4245.7 to read as follows:
    § 4245.7 Successor plan.

    The plan sponsor of a successor plan created by a partition order under § 4233.14 of this chapter must issue to participants and beneficiaries any notice required under the partition order and is not required to file or issue notices under §§ 4245.3 or 4245.5.

    19. Revise § 4245.8 to read as follows:
    § 4245.8 Financial assistance.

    (a) Application for financial assistance. If the plan sponsor of a plan determines that the plan's resource benefit level for an insolvency year is below the level of benefits guaranteed by PBGC or that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for any month during the year, the plan sponsor must apply to PBGC for financial assistance pursuant to section 4261 of ERISA and in accordance with § 4281.47 of this chapter.

    (b) Actuarial valuations and withdrawal liability. The plan sponsor of an insolvent plan or a terminated plan that is expected to become insolvent under section 4245 of ERISA must—

    (1) File withdrawal liability information with PBGC in accordance with § 4041A.23 of this chapter. The filing under paragraph § 4041A.23(b) of this chapter must be not later than 180 days after the earlier of the end of the plan year in which the plan becomes insolvent or terminates and each plan year thereafter.

    (2) Have performed and file with PBGC actuarial valuations in accordance with § 4041A.24 of this chapter, except that if a plan is not terminated, the termination year valuation under § 4041A.24(a)(1) of this chapter must be performed for the plan for the plan year in which the plan becomes insolvent.

    PART 4281—DUTIES OF PLAN SPONSOR FOLLOWING MASS WITHDRAWAL 20. The authority citation for part 4281 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1341(a), 1399(c)(1)(D), 1431, and 1441.

    21. In § 4281.2: a. Add in alphabetical order a definition for “Actuarial valuation”; b. Amend the definition of “Available resources” by removing “means, for a plan year, available” and adding in its place “means available”; c. Amend the definition of “Benefits subject to reduction” by removing “the PBGC's” and adding in its place “PBGC's”; d. Amend the definition of “Financial assistance” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; e. Amend the definition of “Insolvency benefit level” by removing “the PBGC” and adding in its place “PBGC”; f. Amend the definition of “Insolvent” by removing in the first sentence “that a plan is unable” and adding in its place “unable” and by removing the second sentence; g. Amend the definition of “Pro rata” by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must”.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 4281.2 Definitions.

    Actuarial valuation means a report submitted to a plan of a valuation of plan assets and liabilities that is performed in accordance with subpart B of this part.

    22. Revise § 4281.3 to read as follows:
    § 4281.3 Filing and issuance rules.

    (a) Method of filing. Filing with PBGC under this part must be made by a method permitted under the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (b) Method of issuance. The notices must be issued to interested parties by the methods provided in § 4281.32(c) for notices of benefit reductions, § 4281.43(c) for notices of insolvency, and § 4281.45(d) for notices of insolvency benefit level.

    (c) Filing and issuance dates. The date that a filing is sent and the date that an issuance is provided are determined under the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (d) Where to file. Filings with PBGC under this part must be made as described in § 4000.4 of this chapter.

    (e) Computation of time. The time period for filing or issuance under this part must be computed under the rules in subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter.

    § 4281.11 [Amended]
    23. In § 4281.11: a. Amend paragraph (a) by removing “annual valuation” and adding in its place “annual actuarial valuation”, by removing “shall be” and adding in its place “are”, and by removing “year thereafter.” and adding in its place “year thereafter for which an actuarial valuation is required to be performed under § 4041A.24 of this chapter.”. b. Amend paragraph (b) introductory text by removing “shall be” and adding in its place “is”.
    § 4281.13 [Amended]
    24. In § 4281.13: a. Amend the introductory text by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must”; b. Amend paragraph (b) by removing “described in § 4281.14;” and by adding in its place “under § 4044.53 of this chapter;”.
    § 4281.14 [Removed and Reserved]
    25. Section 4281.14 is removed and reserved. 26. Revise § 4281.43 to read as follows:
    § 4281.43 Notice of insolvency.

    (a) Requirement of notice. The plan sponsor of a plan that determines that the plan is insolvent in the current plan year or is expected to be insolvent in the next plan year must file with PBGC a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4281.44(a) and issue to plan participants and beneficiaries a notice of insolvency containing the information described in § 4281.44(b). Once notices of insolvency with respect to a plan have been provided as required, no notice of insolvency need be provided with respect to the plan for any subsequent year. A notice of insolvency may be combined with a notice of insolvency benefit level under § 4281.45 for the same plan year.

    (b) When to provide notice—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the plan sponsor must file or issue the notices of insolvency under paragraph (a) of this section by the later of—

    (i) 90 days before the beginning of the insolvency year, or

    (ii) 30 days after the date the insolvency determination is made.

    (2) Participants and beneficiaries in pay status. The plan sponsor may deliver the notices of insolvency under paragraph (a) of this section to participants and beneficiaries in pay status concurrently with the first benefit payment made after the date the insolvency determination is made.

    (c) Method of issuance to participants and beneficiaries. The issuance of the notice of insolvency to participants and beneficiaries must be made by one of the following methods—

    (1) A method permitted under the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter.

    (2) For participants and beneficiaries other than those who are in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given, the plan sponsor may post the notice at participants' work sites or publish the notice in a union newsletter or in a newspaper of general circulation in the area or areas where participants reside. Notice to a participant is deemed notice to that participant's beneficiary or beneficiaries.

    27. Revise § 4281.44 to read as follows:
    § 4281.44 Contents of notice of insolvency.

    (a) Notice to PBGC. A notice of insolvency required under § 4281.43(a) to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the notice of insolvency instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (b) Notice to participants and beneficiaries. A notice of insolvency required under § 4281.43(a) to be issued to plan participants and beneficiaries must contain all of the following information—

    (1) The name of the plan.

    (2) A statement of the plan year for which the plan sponsor has determined that the plan is or is expected to be insolvent.

    (3) A statement that benefits above the amount that can be paid from available resources or the level guaranteed by PBGC, whichever is greater, will be suspended during the insolvency year, with a brief explanation of which benefits are guaranteed by PBGC under section 4022A of ERISA.

    (4) The name, address, and telephone number of the plan administrator or other person designated by the plan sponsor to answer inquiries concerning benefits.

    28. Revise § 4281.45 to read as follows:
    § 4281.45 Notice of insolvency benefit level.

    (a) Requirement of notice. The plan sponsor of an insolvent plan must file with PBGC a notice of insolvency benefit level containing the information described in § 4281.46(a) and issue to plan payees (which for purposes of this section means participants and beneficiaries in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year) a notice of insolvency benefit level containing the information described in § 4281.46(b) in each of the following circumstances—

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, for the initial insolvency year and for any insolvency year following the initial insolvency year, if there is a change in insolvency benefit level that affects plan payees generally, provide the notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to plan payees.

    (2) For any insolvency year following the initial insolvency year, if there is a change in the insolvency benefit level that affects only one plan payee or a class of plan payees but not plan payees generally (treating commencement of a person's benefits for this purpose as a change in the insolvency benefit level for that person), provide the notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to each affected plan payee.

    (b) Combined notices. The plan sponsor may combine a notice of insolvency benefit level under this section and a notice of insolvency under § 4281.43 for the same plan year.

    (c) When to provide notice—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the plan sponsor must provide the notices under this section by the later of—

    (i) 90 days before the beginning of the insolvency year, or

    (ii) 30 days after the date the insolvency determination is made.

    (2) Participants and beneficiaries in or entering pay status. The plan sponsor may deliver the notices required under this section to participants and beneficiaries who are in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given concurrently with the first benefit payment made after the date the insolvency determination is made.

    (d) Method of issuance to participants and beneficiaries. The issuance of the notice of insolvency benefit level to participants and beneficiaries who are in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year for which the notice is given must be made by a method permitted under the rules in subpart B of part 4000 of this chapter.

    29. Revise § 4281.46 to read as follows:
    § 4281.46 Contents of notice of insolvency benefit level.

    (a) Notice to PBGC. A notice of insolvency benefit level required by § 4281.45(a) to be filed with PBGC must contain the information and certification specified in the notice of insolvency benefit level instructions on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (b) Notice to participants and beneficiaries in or entering pay status. A notice of insolvency benefit level required by § 4281.45(a) to be delivered to plan participants and beneficiaries in pay status or reasonably expected to enter pay status during the insolvency year must contain all of the following information—

    (1) The name of the plan.

    (2) The insolvency year for which the notice is being sent.

    (3) The monthly benefit that the participant or beneficiary may expect to receive during the insolvency year.

    (4) A statement that in subsequent plan years, depending on the plan's available resources, this benefit level may be increased or decreased but not below the level guaranteed by PBGC, and that the participant or beneficiary will be notified in advance of the new benefit level if it is less than the participant's full nonforfeitable benefit under the plan.

    (5) The amount of the participant's or beneficiary's monthly nonforfeitable benefit under the plan.

    (6) The amount of the participant's or beneficiary's monthly benefit that is guaranteed by PBGC.

    (7) The name, address, and telephone number of the plan administrator or other person designated by the plan sponsor to answer inquiries concerning benefits.

    30. In § 4281.47: a. Amend the first sentence in paragraph (a) by removing “plan sponsor” and adding in its place “plan sponsor of a plan” and by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must”; the second sentence is amended by removing “shall” and adding in its place “must” and by removing “prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.” and adding in its place “under paragraph (b) of this section and contain the information under paragraph (c) of this section.”; and the third and fourth sentences are removed. b. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c); c. Remove paragraphs (d) and (e).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 4281.47 Application for financial assistance.

    (b) When, how, and where to apply—(1) Initial application. Except as provided in the next sentence, a plan sponsor must apply for financial assistance no later than 90 days before the first day of the month for which the plan sponsor has determined the resource benefit level will be below the level of guaranteed benefits. If a plan sponsor cannot practicably apply for financial assistance no later than 90 days before such date, the application must be made as soon as practicable.

    (2) Recurring application. A plan sponsor must apply for financial assistance as soon as practicable after the plan sponsor determines that the plan will be unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due for a month.

    (3) How and where to apply. Application to PBGC for financial assistance must be made in accordance with the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter. See § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to apply.

    (c) Contents of application—(1) Initial application. A plan sponsor applying for financial assistance because the plan's resource benefit level is below the level of guaranteed benefits must file an application that includes the information specified in the instructions for an application for initial financial assistance on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (2) Recurring application. A plan sponsor applying for financial assistance because the plan is unable to pay guaranteed benefits for any month must file an application that includes the information specified in the instructions for an application for recurring financial assistance on PBGC's website (www.pbgc.gov).

    (3) Additional information. PBGC may request any additional information that it needs to calculate or verify the amount of financial assistance necessary as part of the conditions of granting financial assistance pursuant to section 4261 of ERISA.

    Issued in Washington, DC. William Reeder, <E T="03">Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2018-15076 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-9980-63—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notification of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Former Beloit Corporation Research Center Property (RCP) of the Beloit Corporation Superfund Site (Site), in Rockton, Illinois, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. This partial deletion includes all media at the 20-acre RCP. The rest of the Site remains on the NPL and is not affected by this action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Illinois, through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, have determined that all appropriate response actions at the RCP identified under CERCLA have been completed, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under CERCLA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011, by mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6036, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Former Beloit Corp. Research Center Property of the Beloit Corp. Superfund Site without prior Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the partial deletion will not take effect. We will then, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial Deletion based on this Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, 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 25, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15145 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 210 [Docket No. FRA-2017-0038] RIN 2130-AC69 Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations AGENCY:

    Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    FRA proposes to eliminate the requirement that certain locomotives display a badge or tag to demonstrate the railroad has certified the locomotives comply with noise emission standards. This proposed rule would reduce economic burdens on the rail industry by removing the badge or tag requirement.

    DATES:

    (1) Written comments must be received by September 14, 2018. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    (2) FRA anticipates being able to resolve this rulemaking without a public, oral hearing. However, if FRA receives a specific request for a public, oral hearing prior to August 15, 2018, one will be scheduled and FRA will publish a supplemental document in the Federal Register to inform interested parties of the date, time, and location of any such hearing.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments: Comments related to Docket No. FRA-2017-0038 may be submitted by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the Supplementary Information section of this document for Privacy Act information related to any submitted comments or materials.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Watson, Industrial Hygienist, Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W38-224, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-1388), or Sam Gilbert, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W31-228, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-0270).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, which requires, when an agency proposes a new significant regulation, it must identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. FRA reviewed the Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations in 49 CFR part 210 1 (“part 210”) and identified for potential elimination the requirement that railroads display a permanent badge or tag in the cabs of their locomotives certifying the locomotives comply with FRA's noise emission standards. FRA believes eliminating this requirement would reduce economic burdens on the rail industry without adversely impacting compliance with part 210. Therefore, in this NPRM, FRA proposes to eliminate the badge or tag requirement.

    1 Unless otherwise specified, all references to CFR sections and parts in this document refer to Title 49 of the CFR.

    FRA estimates there would be no cost burden associated with this proposed rule. In fact, the elimination of the requirement to install a badge in locomotives would save most railroads both the labor to install the badge, and the cost of the badge itself. Over a 20-year period, FRA estimates $1,858,859 in cost savings would accrue—a present, discounted value of $1,053,564 (7% discount).

    II. Background and Overview of the Proposal

    FRA regulations in part 210 limit the noise emitted by railroad locomotives, cars, and other equipment. FRA originally developed these regulations in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency under the Noise Control Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1234, Pub. L. 92-574) and FRA's general enforcement and inspection authority under the railroad safety statutes. See 41 FR 49183, 49183-84 (Nov. 8, 1976).

    Part 210 requires railroads to certify that locomotives built after December 31, 1979, comply with FRA's noise emission standards. Under section 210.27(d), railroads must attach a permanent badge or tag in the cab of the locomotive displaying the results of the certification test (including the method, date and location of the test, and the sound level reading obtained during the test).

    In 2014, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) requested FRA eliminate the requirement to display the certification of compliance with noise emission standards in the locomotive, in its comments on a separate proposed rule concerning stenciling requirements for window glazing. AAR Comment, November 25, 2014, Docket No. FRA-2012-0103. AAR noted that when FRA added section 210.27(d) in 1983, few locomotives had been tested and certified to comply with FRA's noise emission standards. AAR contended that instead of testing individual locomotives for compliance with the noise emission standards, railroads currently test locomotives by model. Documentation of that testing is maintained by the railroads as a usual and customary practice, and may be consulted if FRA has a doubt about whether a locomotive has been tested for compliance with part 210.

    FRA declined to eliminate the display requirement for noise certification at that time because it was beyond the scope of the window-glazing rulemaking. However, FRA said it would consider the merits of AAR's request and evaluate how to address the issue in the future. 81 FR 6775, 6778 (Feb. 9, 2016).

    FRA continually reviews and revises its regulations to ensure the regulatory burden on the rail industry is not excessive, clarify the application of existing requirements and remove requirements no longer necessary, and keep pace with emerging technology, changing operational realities and safety concerns. In addition, on January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs). Executive Order 13771 requires agencies to identify at least two existing regulations to repeal when they propose a new significant regulation. Because the badge or tag requirement is unnecessary for purposes of FRA enforcement of the noise testing requirements, FRA determined repealing section 210.27(d) would reduce the burden on the rail industry without adversely impacting FRA's ability to ensure compliance with part 210. Accordingly, FRA proposes to eliminate the requirement for locomotives to display a permanent badge or tag certifying compliance with noise emission standards.

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    FRA seeks comments on all proposals made in this NPRM.

    Section 210.27 New Locomotive Certification

    Section 210.27 requires railroads certify their locomotives comply with FRA's noise emission standards. Paragraph (a) requires railroads certify that locomotives built after December 31, 1979, comply with the noise emission standards. Paragraph (b) provides railroads must determine certification for each locomotive model by load cell testing or passby testing. Paragraph (c) states if railroads use passby testing, they should conduct the test with the locomotive operating at maximum rated horsepower output. Under paragraph (d), railroads must attach a permanent badge or tag in the cab of the locomotive to display the results of the certification test.

    FRA determined this badge or tag is no longer necessary, and the proposed rule would remove paragraph (d) in its entirety. Although railroads would no longer need to display a badge or tag in the locomotive cab, they would still need to test their locomotives and certify they comply with the noise emission standards, as required under section 210.27(a) through (c).

    IV. Regulatory Impact and Notices Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FRA evaluated this proposed rule consistent with existing policies and procedures, and determined it to be non-significant under both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 as well as DOT policies and procedures (44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)). The proposed rule is also consistent with Executive Order 13563, which emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Finally, this proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    FRA proposes to eliminate the requirement that locomotives display a permanent badge or tag to demonstrate they have been certified to comply with noise emission standards. (The permanent badge or tag will hereafter be referred to as a “badge” in this analysis.) A badge is typically a metal plate installed inside the cab of the locomotive. Most railroads would benefit from this proposed rule because a badge is currently required in all locomotives. Any railroad purchasing new locomotives would not be required to display a badge, therefore saving it money. Also, badges would no longer need to be replaced when locomotives are overhauled.

    FRA estimates there would be no cost burden associated with this proposed rule. The elimination of the requirement to install a badge in locomotives would save most railroads both the labor to install the badge, and the cost of the badge itself. Over a 20-year period, this analysis finds $1,858,859 in cost savings would accrue through the elimination of this requirement. The present, discounted value of these cost savings is $1,053,564 (7% discount). FRA has prepared and placed in the docket a regulatory analysis addressing the economic impact of this proposed rule. FRA requests comments on all aspects of the regulatory evaluation and its conclusions.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (94 Stat. 1164, Pub. L. 96-354), as amended, and codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking), require agency review of proposed and final rules to assess their impact on “small entities” for purposes of the RFA. An agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless it determines and certifies a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA expects this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Federal agencies may adopt their own size standards for small entities, in consultation with the Small Business Administration and in conjunction with public comment. FRA published a final statement of agency policy that formally establishes “small entities” or “small businesses” as being railroads, contractors, and hazardous materials shippers with the revenue of a Class III railroad as set forth in 49 CFR 1201.1-1, which is $20 million or less in inflation-adjusted annual revenues, and commuter railroads or small governmental jurisdictions that serve populations of 50,000 or less. See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003), codified at 49 CFR part 209, Appendix C. FRA is using this definition for this rulemaking.

    FRA estimates there are 704 Class III railroads, most of which would be affected by this proposed rule. Most Class III railroads do not purchase new locomotives; rather, they purchase used locomotives from Class I and Class II railroads. Therefore, any badges required would have already been installed by the larger railroad. If a small railroad did indeed purchase a new locomotive, however, they would save money because the badge would no longer be required. Small railroads would at all events benefit since they would not need to replace badges as they age or when locomotives are overhauled. Therefore, any impact on small railroads by this proposed regulation would likely be small and entirely beneficial.

    FRA invites comments from all interested parties concerning the potential economic impact on small entities resulting from this proposed rule. FRA will consider the comments and data it receives in determining the small entity impact for the final rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule are being submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The sections that contain the current information collection requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as follows:

    CFR section Respondent universe Total annual
  • responses
  • Average time per
  • response
  • Total annual burden
  • hours
  • 210.27(a)—New Locomotive Certification—Request to Manufacturer for Certification 4 Manufacturers 4 requests 30 minutes 2 hours. 210.27(d)—New Locomotive Certification—Identification of Certified Locomotive by Badge Plate (Proposed Rescission of Provision) 4 Manufacturers 790 badges 30 minutes minus 395 hours (Previously Approved Burden by OMB). 210.31—Recorded Measurements of Locomotive Noise Emission Test 4 Manufacturers 745 forms/records 3 hours 2,235 hours.

    All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering or maintaining the needed data, and reviewing the information.

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: Whether these information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FRA, including whether the information has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection requirements; the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, may be minimized.

    For information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB, contact Mr. Robert Brogan, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-493-6292, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, at 202-493-6139.

    Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the collection of information requirements should direct them to Mr. Robert Brogan or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted via email to Mr. Brogan at [email protected], or to Ms. Toone at [email protected]

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

    FRA is not authorized to impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for any new information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action prior to the effective date of the final rule. The current OMB control number for this information collection is OMB No. 2130-0527.

    Federalism Implications

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires FRA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), agencies may not issue a regulation with federalism implications that imposes substantial direct compliance costs and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local government officials early in the process of developing the regulation.

    This proposed rule has been analyzed consistent with the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would not have a substantial effect on the States or their political subdivisions; it would not impose any substantial direct compliance costs; and it would not affect the relationships between the Federal government and the States or their political subdivisions, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    However, this proposed rule could have preemptive effect under certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety statutes, specifically the former Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (former FRSA), repealed and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20106, and the former Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LIA) at 45 U.S.C. 22-34, repealed and re-codified at 49 U.S.C. 20701-03. The former FRSA provides that States may not adopt or continue in effect any law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security that covers the subject matter of a regulation prescribed or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters) or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), except when the State law, regulation, or order qualifies under the “local safety or security hazard” exception to section 20106. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the former LIA preempts the field concerning locomotive safety. See Napier v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605 (1926) and Kurns v. R.R. Friction Prods. Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012). Therefore, if this proposed rule were adopted, it is possible States would be preempted from requiring that locomotives display a permanent badge or tag certifying the locomotive complies with FRA's noise emission standards.

    Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this proposed regulation consistent with its “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts” (FRA's Procedures), 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined this proposed regulation is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. 64 FR 28547-48.

    Under section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the agency has further concluded no extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to this regulation that might trigger the need for a more detailed environmental review. Consequently, FRA finds this proposed regulation is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531, each Federal agency “shall, unless otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector (other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law).” Section 202 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1532, further requires that before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement detailing the effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), and thus preparation of such a statement is not required.

    Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or confidential information, please contact the agency for alternate submission instructions.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 210

    Noise control.

    The Proposed Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend part 210 of chapter II, subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    1. The authority citation for part 210 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 17, Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234 (42 U.S.C. 4916); 49 CFR 1.89.

    § 210.27 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 210.27 by removing paragraph (d).

    Issued in Washington, DC.

    Ronald Louis Batory, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14961 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 648, 660, and 679 RIN 0648-XG338 Request for Information on National Reform of Regional Observer Program Insurance Requirements AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notification; Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS requests information from the public to support a national initiative to reform and streamline observer program insurance requirements. The goals of this reform effort are to: ease the regulatory burden and reduce costs for private companies that provide observer staffing to NMFS observer programs through more efficient, nationally applicable insurance requirements; eliminate outdated and/or inappropriate regulatory requirements; reduce observer deployment risks for vessel owners and shore side processors; and identify insurance that could improve observer safety and facilitate full compensation for observer occupational injuries. To proceed with this effort, NMFS seeks technical information on the types of insurance and minimum coverage amounts (in dollars) that would minimize observer deployment risks to the extent practicable considering costs and other factors. Additionally, NMFS seeks public comment on Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) claims and benefits processing for observer occupational injuries and whether observer companies should carry private insurance to supplement FECA benefits for observers.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Please include the subject heading of “Comments on Regional Observer Program RFI”. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only.

    Mail: Dennis Hansford, 1315 East West Highway, Room 12506, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials. All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Dennis Hansford, 301-427-8136 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., establishes a national program for conservation and management of fishery resources within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). See id. 1801(a)(6), 1811(a). NMFS, acting under authority delegated from the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for managing fisheries under the MSA, in conjunction with eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) established under the Act. See id. 1852(a). Each Council has authority to develop fishery management plans (FMPs) for fisheries in a specific geographical area and to deem proposed regulations that are necessary for plan implementation. See id. 1852(a), (c).

    Collection of information on fishing and fish processing, such as type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch in numbers of fish or weight thereof, fishing locations, and biological information, are critical to effective fishery management. See id. 1853(a)(5). To obtain this information, the MSA authorizes, among other things, that an FMP may “[r]equire that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery . . .”. See id. 1853(b)(8).

    In 2016, 53 fisheries subject to management under an FMP or international authority were monitored by observer programs. To carry out required observer coverage, NMFS administers 14 observer programs that operate in the agency's five regions. These programs train and deploy observers, establish information collection protocols, debrief observers following deployment to provide quality control on information that observers collect, and oversee private companies that provide program support. At present, all NMFS observer programs staff their at-sea and shore side observer deployments through private companies, commonly referred to as observer providers. Observer providers service NMFS regional observer programs under two distinct models: (1) Direct service, where the NMFS observer program contracts with an observer provider; and (2) industry-funded, where the observer provider contracts with industry to fulfill observer coverage requirements. Further information about NMFS' regional observer programs is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/fishery-observers.

    While observers most frequently are deployed under the MSA to collect information on fishing vessels, observers also are deployed on motherships, and shore side processing facilities. Additionally, NMFS' regional observer programs deploy at-sea monitors, who collect only vessel catch information under “catch share programs,” which allocate a portion of a fishery total allowable catch to permit holders or sectors. For purposes of this RFI, the term “observer” refers to a person deployed in any of these roles.

    Observer Deployment Risks

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries ranks commercial fishing as one of the most dangerous occupations. Because most observers are deployed to fishing vessels, observer risk of occupational injury is on par with that of commercial fishermen. Observer programs also entail risks for observer employers—private companies—and the fishing vessels and shore side processors that are subject to observer coverage. The risks for the three parties include:—

    1. Observers—risk of occupational injury.

    2. Vessel owners and shore side processors—observer claims for compensation for incidents arising out of deployment, e.g., occupational injury.

    3. Private companies—observer claims for compensation for incidents arising out of deployment, e.g., occupational injury, and vessel/shore side processor owner claims for damages resulting from observer negligence.

    Insurance and statutory compensation programs are the traditional mechanisms to address the risks that private companies entail. However, the nuances of maritime law combined with the unique nature of the fishery observer occupation have complicated efforts to address observer risks, whether through insurance or statutory program. Since 1994, Councils and NMFS have taken various efforts to resolve insurance issues for observer programs. These efforts have resulted in regulatory—or contract based—insurance requirements that differ across regions. At present, the types of insurance policies that observer providers are required to have, either by regulation or by contract, include the following:

    • Maritime liability to cover “seamen's claims” under the Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act) and General Maritime Law • U.S. Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act • State Worker's Compensation • Contractual General Liability • Marine General Liability • Commercial General Liability • Marine Employers Liability

    Regulatory based observer provider insurance requirements are codified at 50 CFR 679.52(b)(11)(vi) (North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program), 50 CFR 660.17(e)(vii) (West Coast Groundfish Observer Program), and 50 CFR 648.11(h)(3) (Northeast Observer Program).

    In addition, Congress addressed compensation for observer occupational risks through the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Public Law 104-297 (Oct. 11, 1996). Through that statute, Congress amended the MSA to deem observers to be federal employees for purposes of FECA while deployed on a vessel under the Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. 1881b(c). The extension of FECA coverage to observers deployed at-sea filled a gap in coverage for observer occupational injuries that occur at-sea, but this extension is not applicable to shore side observers.

    NMFS Reevaluation of Observer Program Insurance Requirements

    Beginning in 2014, NMFS initiated a reevaluation of regional observer program insurance requirements. This effort included an Observer Provider Insurance Workshop in 2016 during which observer providers, insurance experts, and observers joined NMFS and representatives from other federal agencies to discuss the efficiency of observer provider insurance requirements and compensation for observer occupational injuries. Subsequent to the Insurance Workshop, NMFS published an Observer Provider Insurance Workshop Technical Report (Tech Report), available at http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tech-memos, which summarized the Workshop's proceedings and identified actions that NMFS could take to reform observer program insurance requirements and facilitate compensation for observer occupational injuries. As detailed in the Tech Report, some of the insurance policies that observer providers are required to have are inapplicable to observers or have limited applicability depending on whether the claim concerns an injury sustained at-sea or on shore. Furthermore, prior to the publication of the Tech Report, it was noted that other forms of insurance generally not required, such as a Marine General Liability policy, may better address certain observer company risks.

    In addition, NMFS has learned that, while FECA does provide coverage for observer at-sea injuries, the compensation formula under that Act does not provide for overtime pay. Because observers typically work 12-16 hour shifts to correspond with fishing vessel crew shifts, they often do not receive full wage compensation for occupational injury claims under FECA.

    To address these issues, the Tech Report recommended that NMFS explore replacing regional insurance requirements with nationally applicable minimum insurance requirements. The goal of that action would be to streamline and improve the efficiency of regional observer provider insurance requirements, thereby resulting in reduced regulatory burden, cost savings, and a suite of insurance that better addresses observer deployment risks. Considering the highly technical nature of maritime insurance and insurance markets in general, the Tech Report recommended that NMFS first gather more information on the types of insurance and minimum dollar coverage amounts for the risks that observer deployments present. NMFS issues this RFI to gather that information through the questions below.

    In addition, NMFS seeks public comment on the related issue of FECA compensation for observer occupational injuries and whether some form of private insurance could supplement FECA benefits. National inconsistencies with observer compensation for occupational injuries were noted not only in the Tech Report, but also in the Observer Program Safety Review (OPSR) Final Report, available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/observer-safety-program-review-report. The OPSR recommended that NMFS initiate action to improve the insurance scheme for compensation of observer occupational injuries. Through this notification, NMFS seeks information to respond to that recommendation and ways that insurance can improve observer safety.

    Request for Information

    To reform and streamline observer provider insurance requirements, and facilitate observer compensation for at-sea occupational injuries under FECA, NMFS seeks public comment on the issues raised in this RFI and, in particular, on the following questions. See ADDRESSES for information on how to submit comments.

    1. What insurance policies and coverage amounts (in dollars) are appropriate to address observer deployment risks for: (a) Observers, (b) observer providers, and (c) owners of vessel and shore side processors and other observing platforms?

    2. If observer providers have different insurance requirements to cover the different contexts in which observers are deployed—at-sea and shore side, what would be the most feasible and efficient insurance package and associated dollar amounts for covering all of the various contexts?

    3. As an alternative to national minimum insurance requirements, would it be feasible, and more efficient, for observer providers to self-organize and self-insure?

    4. If an insurance policy for a Jones Act or General Maritime Law claim is required, acknowledging that courts in some jurisdictions have held that those claims are inapplicable to observers, might it be beneficial to continue the requirement?

    5. What gaps, if any, are there in FECA coverage for observer occupational injuries? For observers, what, if any, problems have you experienced with regard to claims and benefits for occupational injuries, whether under FECA, state worker's compensation, or private insurance?

    6. If there are gaps in FECA coverage, is there a type of private insurance that could supplement FECA compensation for observer occupational injuries?

    7. What types of insurance could advance NMFS' efforts to improve the safety of observer programs and reduce the occurrence of observer occupational injuries?

    8. To maximize efficiency of observer insurance requirements, should NMFS address the requirements regionally, through regional regulatory or contractual insurance requirements, or through nationally applicable minimum insurance standards? If a, what regional or national policies and dollar amounts of coverage would be appropriate?

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Edward C. Cyr, Director, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15057 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 136 Monday, July 16, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Annual Capital Expenditures Survey AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Valerie Mastalski, U.S. Census Bureau, Room HQ-8K073, Washington, DC 20233; (301) 763-3317 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The U.S. Census Bureau plans to conduct the 2018 through 2020 Annual Capital Expenditures Survey (ACES). This survey collects data on fixed assets and depreciation, sales and receipts, capitalized computer software, and capital expenditures for new and used structures and equipment. The ACES is the sole source of detailed comprehensive statistics on actual business spending for private non-farm companies, organizations, and associations operating in the United States. Both employer and nonemployer companies are included in the survey.

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis is the primary Federal user of ACES data. BEA relies on ACES data to refine and evaluate annual estimates of investment in structures and equipment in the national income and product accounts, compile annual input-output tables, and compute gross domestic product by industry. The Federal Reserve Board uses these data to improve estimates of investment indicators for monetary policy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses these data to improve estimates of capital stocks for productivity analysis. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services use these data for developing estimates of investment in private health care structures and equipment as a part of the National Health Expenditure Accounts. Industry analysts use these data for market analysis, economic forecasting, identifying business opportunities, product development, and business planning.

    Planned changes from the previous ACES are the elimination of detailed capital expenditures by type of structure and type of equipment. These data are collected in years ending in -2 and -7, concurrently with the Economic Census. They are not in scope of this notice, which covers ACES data collection for 2018 through 2020.

    The Census Bureau does plan to add questions on the dollar value of new and used robotics expenditures beginning with the 2018 survey. These questions will gauge prevalence of robotics use by detail North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries.

    II. Method of Collection

    The initial mailing will include a letter instructing respondents to report online. The Census Bureau eliminated the use of paper forms with the 2016 ACES. The electronic reporting system provides a cost-effective and user-friendly method to collect data from companies. The Census Bureau will supply companies with a unique authentication code for the electronic reporting tool. Respondents will have the option of printing out a worksheet that lists all of the questions. Respondents will be able to print the worksheet to use as a guide to respond or can print the worksheet after completing the questionnaire as a record of their response. The online reporting instrument is tailored to the company's diversity of operations and number of industries with payroll. Employer companies will complete the ACE-1 electronic reporting instrument and nonemployers will complete the ACE-2 electronic reporting instrument.

    Companies will be asked to respond to the survey within 30 days of the initial mailing. The Census Bureau will use reminder letters and/or telephone calls to encourage participation of companies that have not responded within 30 days.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0782.

    Form Number: ACE-1 and ACE-2.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Private, non-farm businesses or other for-profit organizations; non-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 70,127 (50,127 employer companies, and 20,000 nonemployer businesses).

    Estimated Time per Response: The average for all respondents is 2.27 hours. For employer companies completing form ACE-1, the range is 2 to 17 hours, averaging 2.78 hours. For companies completing form ACE-2, the range is less than 1 hour to 2 hours, averaging 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 159,134 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0. (This is not the cost of respondents' time, but the indirect costs respondents may incur for such things as purchases of specialized software or hardware needed to report, or expenditures for accounting or records maintenance services required specifically by the collection.)

    Respondents' Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 United States Code, Sections 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15070 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles, Including Cars, SUVs, Vans and Light Trucks, and Automotive Parts; Change of Date for the Public Hearing AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Change of date for public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is cancelling one of the days of the two-day public hearing associated with the notice of request for public comments and public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on May 30, 2018. In the notice, the Department encouraged interested public participants to participate in a hearing for the investigation assist the Department in determining whether imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. The hearing was originally scheduled for July 19 and 20. Only 45 requests to testify were received. Because these requests can all be accommodated on a single day, the second day of the hearing originally scheduled for July 20 is cancelled. The hearing will be held on July 19 only. The hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will end at 5:30 p.m. The location of the hearing remains unchanged.

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held on July 19, 2018, beginning at 8:30 a.m. local time and concluding at 5:30 p.m. local time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing will be held at 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sahra Park-Su, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-2811. For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see www.bis.doc.gov/232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of May 30, 2018, the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) invited interested parties to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the Department of Commerce's investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of automobiles, including cars, SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts (83 FR 24735). In the notice, the Secretary also announced that the Department will be holding a public hearing on the investigation on July 19 and 20, 2018. Only 45 requests to testify were received. Because these requests can all be accommodated on a single day, the second day of the hearing originally scheduled for July 20, 2018 is cancelled.

    The hearing will be held on July 19 only and will take place from 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. The location of the hearing remains unchanged at the Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20230.

    Procedures for Attending the Hearing

    The hearing is open to the general public and seating is on a first-come-first served basis. We anticipate a high volume of interest and encourage all members of public wishing to attend, to arrive early and be prepared to go through a security screening. You must present a valid form of identification such as a driver's license, passport, or state issued ID.

    The main entrance of the Department of Commerce is on 14th Street NW. between Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue, across from the Ronald Reagan Building. Upon entering the building, please go through security and check in at the guard's desk. DOC staff will meet and escort visitors to the auditorium.

    Non-U.S. Citizens Please Note: All foreign national visitors who do not have permanent resident status and who wish to attend the hearing must contact [email protected] by 12 p.m., July 16. You will then be asked to provide additional information. Please also bring a copy of your passport on the day of the hearing to serve as identification. Failure to provide the requested information prior to arrival will result, at a minimum, in significant delays in entering the facility.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Earl Comstock, Director, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15193 Filed 7-12-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-17-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-71-2018] Approval of Subzone Status; VF Outdoor, LLC; Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, California

    On May 9, 2018, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Long Beach, grantee of FTZ 50, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 50, on behalf of VF Outdoor, LLC, in Ontario, Santa Fe Springs and Corona, California.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (83 FR 22441, May 15, 2018). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 50R was approved on July 10, 2018, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 50's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15113 Filed 7-13-18; 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: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. (Fushun Jinly) did not make sales of small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973, or (202) 482-0131, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results1 on March 12, 2018. For a discussion of events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see Commerce's Issues and Decision Memorandum.2

    1See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017, 83 FR 10658 (March 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China; 2016-2017,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. The revised deadline for the final determination of this review is now July 10, 2018.3

    3See Memorandum for The Record from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (Tolling Memorandum), dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 3 days.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010, 3801.10, and 8545.11.0020. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    In the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we address all issues raised in interested parties' case and rebuttal briefs. In the Appendix to this notice, we provide a list of the issues raised by parties. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the CRU. In addition, parties can directly access a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we did not make any revisions to the margin calculations for Fushun Jinly.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Fangda Group 4 and Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou Jianglong) had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.5 We received no information to contradict this determination. Therefore, we continue to determine that Fangda Group and Xuzhou Jianglong had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, and will issue appropriate liquidation instructions that are consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification, for these final results.6

    4 The Fangda Group consists of Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. In a prior administrative review Commerce determined, pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) and (G) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that these companies were affiliated. Additionally, Commerce determined, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f) that it was appropriate to treat these companies as a single entity. See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 73 FR 49408, 49411-12 (August 21, 2008), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 2049 (January 14, 2009). Because there is no evidence on the record of this review that would require us to reevaluate this determination, we are continuing to treat these companies as part of the Fangda Group.

    5See Preliminary Results at 10658-59.

    6See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 4, 2011) (Assessment Practice Refinement).

    Final Results of the Review

    Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Fushun Jinly for the POR from February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd 7 0.00

    Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, and Commerce no longer considers the China-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,8 we did not conduct a review of the China-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity (i.e., 159.64 percent) 9 is not subject to change as a result of this review.

    7 Also known as Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd. See Petitioner's February 28, 2017 Request for Initiation of Antidumping Administrative Review at Attachment 1, p.11; see also Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order; Partial Rescission of Administrative Review; and Intent to Rescind Administrative Review, in Part, 76 FR 12324 (March 7, 2011) at n.7.

    8See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    9See, Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 82 FR 10876, 10877 (February 16, 2017).

    Assessment Rates

    Commerce determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b). We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of review. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Fushun Jinly, we will instruct the CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties because Fushun Jinly's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero.10

    10See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by companies individually examined during this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries associated with those sales at the rate for the China-wide entity. Furthermore, where we found that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's cash deposit rate) will be liquidated at the rate for the China-wide entity.11

    11 For a full discussion of this practice, see Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR at 65694.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) No cash deposit will be required for subject merchandise exported by Fushun Jinly; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity (i.e., 159.64 percent); and (4) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter(s) that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also 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 POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction 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 a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Changes Since the Preliminary Results Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: U.S. Sales Process and Whether to Apply Total Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Comment 2: Reliability of Factors of Production (FOP) and Sales Databases and Whether to Apply Total AFA Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-15114 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that 230 companies made sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manuel Rey or Brittany Bauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5518 or (202) 482-3860, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This review covers 231 producers and/or exporters. The producers/exporters which Commerce selected for individual examination are Devi 1 and the Liberty Group.2 The producers/exporters which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

    1 Devi consists of Devi Fisheries Limited, Satya Seafoods Private Limited, Usha Seafoods, and Devi Aquatech Private Limited.

    2 The Liberty Group consists of: Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd.; Kader Exports Private Limited; Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited; Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.; Liberty Oil Mills Ltd.; Premier Marine Products Private Limited; and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited.

    On March 12, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results. 3 On April 11, 2018, we received a case brief from Devi and the Liberty Group (collectively, the respondents). On April 16, 2018, we received a rebuttal brief from the petitioner.4

    3See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 83 FR 10665 (March 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results).

    4 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. 5 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    5 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see the Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” (dated concurrently with these results) (IDM), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the IDM. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov; the IDM is also available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the electronic version of the IDM are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the margin calculations performed for Devi.6

    6See IDM at 4.

    7 This rate is based on the rates for the respondents that were selected for individual review, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts available. See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Final Results of the Review

    We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period of February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods/Devi Aquatech Private Limited 1.35 Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products Private Limited/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited 0.00

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 7

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Abad Fisheries 1.35 Akshay Food Impex Private Limited 1.35 Alashore Marine Exports (P) Ltd 1.35 Alpha Marine 1.35 Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Allanasons Ltd 1.35 AMI Enterprises 1.35 Amulya Seafoods 1.35 Amarsagar Seafoods Private Limited 1.35 Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods 1.35 Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited 1.35 Angelique Intl 1.35 Anjaneya Seafoods 1.35 Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited 1.35 Aquatica Frozen Foods Global Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Arya Sea Foods Private Limited 1.35 Asvini Exports 1.35 Avanti Feeds Limited/Avanti Frozen Foods Private Limited 1.35 Asvini Fisheries Ltd/Asvini Fisheries Private Limited 1.35 Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited 1.35 B-One Business House Pvt. Ltd 1.35 B R Traders 1.35 Baby Marine Exports 1.35 Baby Marine International 1.35 Baby Marine Sarass 1.35 Baby Marine Ventures 1.35 Balasore Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Bay Seafoods 1.35 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 1.35 Bhavani Seafoods 1.35 Bijaya Marine Products 1.35 Blue Fin Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd 1.35 Bluepark Seafoods Private Ltd 1.35 BMR Exports 1.35 BMR Industries Private Limited 1.35 Britto Exports 1.35 C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd 1.35 Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Canaan Marine Products 1.35 Capithan Exporting Co 1.35 Cargomar Private Limited 1.35 Castlerock Fisheries Ltd 1.35 Chakri Fisheries Private Limited 1.35 Chemmeens (Regd) 1.35 Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.) 1.35 Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited 1.35 Coastal Aqua 1.35 Coastal Corporation Ltd 1.35 Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Coreline Exports 1.35 Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Crystal Sea Foods Private Limited 1.35 D2 D Logistics Private Limited 1.35 Damco India Private Limited 1.35 Delsea Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Devi Sea Foods Limited 8 1.35 Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company 1.35 Esmario Export Enterprises 1.35 Exporter Coreline Exports 1.35 Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises 1.35 Febin Marine Foods 1.35 Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 G A Randerian Ltd 1.35 Gadre Marine Exports 1.35 Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd 1.35 Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd 1.35 Geo Seafoods 1.35 Goodwill Enterprises 1.35 Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd 1.35 Growel Processors Private Limited 1.35 GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd 1.35 HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage 1.35 Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM—Mafco Yard, Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai—400 705, India) 1.35 Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India) 1.35 HN Indigos Private Limited 1.35 Hyson Logistics and Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 IFB Agro Industries Ltd 1.35 Indian Aquatic Products 1.35 Indo Aquatics 1.35 Indo Fisheries 1.35 Indo French Shellfish Company Private Limited 1.35 Innovative Foods Limited 1.35 International Freezefish Exports 1.35 Interseas 1.35 ITC Limited, International Business 1.35 ITC Ltd 1.35 Jagadeesh Marine Exports 1.35 Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Jinny Marine Traders 1.35 Jiya Packagings 1.35 K V Marine Exports 1.35 Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exp. India Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Kalyanee Marine 1.35 Kanch Ghar 1.35 Karunya Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Kay Kay Exports 1.35 Kings Marine Products 1.35 KNC Agro Limited 1.35 Koluthara Exports Ltd 1.35 Landauer Ltd 1.35 Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd 1.35 Magnum Estates Limited 1.35 Magnum Export 1.35 Magnum Sea Foods Limited 1.35 Malabar Arabian Fisheries 1.35 Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Mangala Sea Foods 1.35 Mangala Sea Products 1.35 Marine Harvest India 1.35 Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Milesh Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Monsun Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 MTR Foods 1.35 Munnangi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd 1.35 Naga Hanuman Fish Packers 1.35 Naik Frozen Foods Private Limited 1.35 Naik Seafoods Ltd 1.35 Naik Oceanic Exports Pvt. Ltd/Rafiq Naik Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Neeli Aqua Private Limited 1.35 Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited 1.35 Nezami Rekha Sea Foods Private Limited 1.35 NGR Aqua International 1.35 Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Nine Up Frozen Foods 1.35 Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd 1.35 Oceanic Edibles International Limited 1.35 Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Paramount Seafoods 1.35 Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Pasupati Aquatics Private Limited 1.35 Penver Products Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Pesca Marine Products Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Pijikay International Exports P Ltd 1.35 Pisces Seafood International 1.35 Pravesh Seafood Private Limited 1.35 Premier Exports International 1.35 Premier Marine Foods 1.35 Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd 1.35 R V R Marine Products Limited 1.35 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Raju Exports 1.35 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd 1.35 Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage 1.35 Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Razban Seafoods Ltd 1.35 RBT Exports 1.35 RDR Exports 1.35 RF Exports 1.35 Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Rohi Marine Private Ltd 1.35 Royal Marine Impex Private Limited 1.35 Royale Marine Impex Pvt. Ltd 1.35 RSA Marines 1.35 S & S Seafoods 1.35 S Chanchala Combines 1.35 S. A. Exports 1.35 Safa Enterprises 1.35 Sagar Foods 1.35 Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sagar Samrat Seafoods 1.35 Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sai Sea Foods 1.35 Salvam Exports (P) Ltd 1.35 Sanchita Marine Products Private Limited 1.35 Sandhya Aqua Exports 1.35 Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sandhya Marines Limited 1.35 Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd 1.35 Sarveshwari Exports 1.35 Sea Foods Private Limited 1.35 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Selvam Exports Private Limited 1.35 Sharat Industries Ltd 1.35 Sharma Industries 1.35 Shimpo Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Shimpo Seafoods Private Limited 1.35 Shiva Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Shree Datt Aquaculture Farms Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd 1.35 Silver Seafood 1.35 Sita Marine Exports 1.35 Southern Tropical Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sowmya Agri Marine Exports 1.35 Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage 1.35 Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Srikanth International 1.35 Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Star Organic Foods Incorporated 1.35 Star Organic Foods Private Limited 1.35 Sterling Foods 1.35 Sun-Bio Technology Ltd 1.35 Sunrise Aqua Food Exports 1.35 Supran Exim Private Limited 1.35 Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd 1.35 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 1.35 Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd 1.35 TBR Exports Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Teekay Marine P. Ltd 1.35 The Waterbase Limited 1.35 Triveni Fisheries P Ltd 1.35 U & Company Marine Exports 1.35 Ulka Sea Foods Private Limited 1.35 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd 1.35 Unitriveni Overseas 1.35 V V Marine Products 1.35 V.S. Exim Pvt. Ltd 1.35 Vasai Frozen Food Co 1.35 Vasista Marine 1.35 Veejay Impex 1.35 Veerabhadra Exports Private Limited 1.35 Veronica Marine Exports Private Limited 1.35 Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd 1.35 Vinner Marine 1.35 Vitality Aquaculture Pvt., Ltd 1.35 Wellcome Fisheries Limited 1.35 West Coast Fine Foods (India) Private Limited 1.35 West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited 1.35 Z A Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 1.35
    Assessment Rates

    8 Shrimp produced and exported by Devi Sea Foods was excluded from the antidumping duty order effective February 1, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order in Part, 75 FR 41813, 41814 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, we are conducting this administrative review with respect to Devi Sea Foods only for shrimp produced in India where Devi Sea Foods acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).

    Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

    Because the weighted-average dumping margin for the Liberty Group is zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Devi reported the entered value for all its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value.

    For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used as the assessment rate the cash deposit rate assigned to these exporters, in accordance with our practice.9

    9See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 43517 (September 18, 2017) and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Notice of Correction to the Final Results of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 82 FR 43740 (September 19, 2017).

    Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Devi or the Liberty Group for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.10

    10 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all-other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.11 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    11See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147, 5148 (February 1, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only 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 the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, 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 a violation subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the IDM I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Margin Calculations V. Discussion of the Issues

    1. Ministerial Errors for Devi

    VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-15115 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-837] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hyundai Steel Co. (Hyundai Steel), a producer/exporter of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea), received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, and that Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM), a producer/exporter of CTL plate did not. We are also rescinding the review for 12 companies.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff at 202-482-1009 (for Hyundai Steel), or Jolanta Lawska at 202-482-8362 (for DSM), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review of CTL plate from Korea on March 12, 2018.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On April 11, 2018, we received a timely filed case brief from Nucor Corporation (the petitioner), and on April 16, 2018, Hyundai Steel submitted a timely filed rebuttal brief. Based on an analysis of the comments received, we made no changes to the subsidy rates determined for the respondents in the Preliminary Results. 2 The final subsidy rates are listed in the “Final Results of Administrative Review” section, below.

    1See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; and Rescission of Review, in Part; Calendar Year 2016; 83 FR 10661 (March 12, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 10662.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are certain hot-rolled carbon-quality steel: (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a nominal or actual thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are cut-to-length (not in coils) and without patterns in relief), of iron or non-alloy-quality steel; and (2) flat-rolled products, hot-rolled, of a nominal or actual thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are cut-to-length (not in coils).

    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7225.40.3050, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.99.0000.

    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise covered by the order is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in interested parties' case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3 The issues are identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum for the Record from James Maeder, Senior Director performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance: “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission: Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the comments received from the petitioner and Hyundai Steel, we made no changes to the net subsidy rates calculated for the mandatory respondents. For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.4 For a description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    4See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Rescission of the 2016 Administrative Review, in Part

    Commerce initiated a review of 14 companies in this administrative review.5 The petitioner timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of Bookuk Steel, Daewoo International Corp., Hyundai Glovis Co., Ltd., Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., Ltd., Hyuosung Corporation, Samsung C&T Corporation, Samsung C&T Engineering & Construction Group, Samsung C&T Trading Investment Group, Samsung Heavy Industries, SK Networks, Steel N People Co Ltd., and Sung Jin Steel Co., Ltd.6 Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to these companies.

    5See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 17188, April 10, 2017.

    6See Letter from Petitioner, Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from South Korea: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review in Part,” dated July 10, 2017.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016 to be:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • ad valorem
  • (percent)
  • Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd * 0.21 Hyundai Steel Co 0.54 * De minimis.
    Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. For Hyundai Steel, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the company, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the percent rate of the entered value. Because we have calculated a de minimis countervailable subsidy rate for DSM in the final results of this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to countervailing duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212.

    Commerce intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amounts shown above, with the exception of DSM, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction 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 proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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 a violation which is subject to sanction.

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Scope of the Order III. Period of Review IV. Subsidies Valuation Information V. Analysis of Programs VI. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Hyundai Steel and Hyundai Green Power Are Cross-Owned Affiliates Comment 2: Whether the Government of Korea Purchased Electricity From Hyundai Green Power for More Than Adequate Remuneration During the POR VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-15137 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 180404350-8350-01] Current and Future Workforce Needs to Support a Strong Domestic Semiconductor Industry AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on behalf of the Department of Commerce and the National Security Council is seeking information on the scope and sufficiency of efforts to educate, train, and attract the workforce necessary to meet the demands of the current and future semiconductor industry, in support of the President's National Security Strategy.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 15, 2018. Written comments in response to this RFI should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections below. Submissions received after that date may not be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    To respond to this RFI, please submit written comments by email to [email protected] in any of the following formats: ASCII; Word; RTF; or PDF. Please include your name, organization's name (if any), and cite “Semiconductor Workforce RFI” in the subject line of all correspondence. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, or Adobe PDF formats only.

    Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include electronic copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional materials.

    All submissions, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or content will not be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this FRN contact: Jason Boehm or David Seiler, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, at 301-975-8678 or 301-975-2074.

    Please direct media inquiries to Jennifer Huergo in the NIST Public Affairs Office at [email protected], (301) 975-6343.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    President Trump's National Security Strategy,1 released in December of 2017, specifically highlights the importance of emerging technologies to economic growth and security, including advances in data science, encryption, autonomous technologies, new materials, advanced computing technologies, and artificial intelligence—all of which are powered by and dependent upon continued advances in semiconductor technology. Maintaining the technological edge of the United States in this critical industry area requires a robust domestic workforce. As part of the National Security Strategy, the United States will seek to maintain and develop the necessary workforce through a multifaceted approach including enhanced support for K-12, undergraduate, and graduate STEM education (with a particular focus on semiconductor technology), targeted technical training, internship and apprenticeship programs, and cooperative education programs.

    1https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf.

    Responses to this RFI will inform recommendations to the National Security Council on steps the Administration can take to strengthen the technical workforce that supports the semiconductor and related industries. The report will assess the scope and sufficiency of efforts to educate and train the future American semiconductor workforce from primary through higher education, and provide recommendations and a plan on how the government will continue to support the growth and sustainment of this workforce to meet the needs of both the private and public sectors.

    In this RFI, NIST seeks specific information from stakeholders of the semiconductor industry such as materials providers, equipment suppliers, manufacturers, designers, trade associations, educational institutions, government entities, and other interested parties about the workforce needs of the semiconductor industry, and potential efforts to strengthen the current and future workforce. In this request, the term “semiconductor” broadly refers to semiconductor materials, devices, sensors, integrated circuits, computing architectures, software tools, design, lithography, fabrication, testing, packaging, embedded software and firmware developers, and related technologies that, through a combination of materials processing, manufacturing, and application, form the foundation and basis for the semiconductor, memory, technology manufacturing, computing, and information technology industry sectors.

    NIST seeks information that will assist U.S. Government efforts in developing recommendations for supporting the growth and sustainment of the Nation's semiconductor workforce to meet the current and future needs of the public and private sectors. Our goal is to gather input that will be utilized to refine and target relevant federal resources and programs to attract, educate, and train the necessary advanced technical workforce necessary to ensure that the U.S. maintains a robust semiconductor industrial base, including the fundamental research needed to continue to innovate in semiconductor technologies, that is necessary to drive future advances in transformational technologies including artificial intelligence (AI), advanced and quantum computing, and autonomous systems.

    Request for Information

    Respondents are encouraged—but not required—to respond to any or all of the following questions, and may address related topics. Please identify the questions or topic areas each of your comments addresses. The following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks comment. These questions are directed towards domestic semiconductor manufacturers, associated supporting industries, educational institutions, and their stakeholders. Responses may include estimates. Please indicate where the response is an estimate.

    Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this RFI in any manner, and all responses that comply with the requirements listed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice will be considered.

    Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include electronic copies of the referenced materials. Do not include in comments or otherwise submit proprietary or confidential information. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or inappropriate language or content will not be considered.

    Basic Information

    Briefly describe your company or organization in terms of:

    a. What is the name of your company or organization?

    b. How is your company or organization involved with the semiconductor industry (e.g., industry association, university, company involved in semiconductor design, fabrication, package test and assembly, or other)?

    Workforce Challenges and Needs

    1. When hiring technical staff, for what types of positions do you encounter the most difficultly in finding qualified employees?

    a. Have you been able to identify any causes for these recruitment difficulties (lack of appropriate educational programs, lack of collaboration between industry and educational institutions, competition within your industry, competition for talent from outside your industry, etc.)

    2. Are there specific educational levels that are needed for your current workforce?

    a. Are there some educational levels where it is harder to find qualified staff?

    b. Have you been able to identify any causes for these difficulties in finding qualified staff (high competition for a specific talent pool, lack of experienced individuals, educational programs not directly aligned with your needs, etc.)

    3. Are there certain factors relating to workforce needs that your company or organization prioritizes when locating a new facility, for example a strong base of existing talent, a robust local educational ecosystem, etc.?

    4. How do you see the work force needs of your company or organization changing over the next 5 years, 10 years, 15 years?

    a. Do you think that certain levels of education will be more important?

    b. Are there fields of training that you think will be more important?

    5. As the industry continues to evolve and develop and integrate new technologies (e.g., new computing paradigms, new material systems, broader use of AI) are there skillsets that you see as becoming more important?

    a. Do you have an opinion on the types of training needed to develop these skillsets for the future?

    b. From your experience are there types of partnerships with federal agencies and/or educational institutions that would be helpful to prepare this workforce for the future?

    6. Are there certain obstacles that you see as the biggest impediment to meeting your workforce needs? For example, a lack of aligned educational programs (including internship and apprenticeship opportunities), a lack of collaboration with such educational programs, a lack of students in science and engineering, a lack of interest in your industry, a lack of facilities with appropriate equipment to train workers (e.g., community colleges without access to fabrication equipment/facilities), or other issues? Please describe.

    Potential Workforce Solutions

    7. Are there specific approaches your company or organization utilizes to address your workforce needs? For example, tailored partnerships and curricula with regional universities and community colleges, internship or apprenticeship programs, training or retraining of displaced workers, or other approaches?

    8. Are there certain approaches or actions that would most effectively stimulate the supply of qualified workers for the semiconductor industry in the near term (e.g., targeted scholarships including internships/apprenticeships, loan repayment incentives, procurement of specialized equipment for schools and universities, immigration and visa reform, etc.)?

    9. What approaches do you think would most effectively stimulate the supply of qualified workers for the semiconductor industry over the long term (e.g., professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers and K-12 student programs such as camps, competitions and projects in the semiconductor space)?

    10. Although apprenticeship has, in the past, been available mostly to those in the traditional trades, efforts are now underway to expand apprenticeship into new fields, including advanced manufacturing, IT, healthcare, energy supply and distribution, banking and finance and engineering (in partnership with four-year institutions). Have you considered engaging in apprenticeship training to prepare your workforce? Why or why not?

    11. Are there examples of partnerships with local educational institutions (e.g., a work-study program) that you use to support your operations?

    12. Are there types of support (grants, economic development incentives or other benefits) from federal, state and local government agencies that have helped enable your workforce? Of these types of support what makes them most effective?

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 278s.

    Kevin A. Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15077 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG304 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from the NMFS Panama City, FL laboratory. If granted, the EFP would authorize NMFS or NMFS contracted commercial fishers aboard their commercial fishing vessels to collect certain deep-water snapper species in waters of the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Caribbean off Puerto Rico. The EFP would exempt this activity from complying with certain seasonal closures in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. The purpose of the EFP is to gather information that could be used to define essential fish habitat (EFH) of deep-water snappers off the coast of Puerto Rico and to determine life history information for queen and blackfin snappers.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the application by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: “PR NOAA NMFS_EFP 2018”.

    Mail: Sarah Stephenson, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    The EFP application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Stephenson, 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

    The applicant requests authorization to collect deep-water reef fish species in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ off the west, north, and south coasts of Puerto Rico. The applicant is seeking to gather information that could be used to define essential fish habitat for deep-water snapper species off the coast of Puerto Rico, and to obtain additional life history information about queen and blackfin snapper. Specimens would be collected by NMFS researchers and/or contractors and contracted commercial fishermen aboard three commercial fishing vessels. These activities may be conducted without NMFS staff aboard the contracted vessels. Each vessel's home port is located in Puerto Rico. This permit would exempt project participants from certain seasonal and area closure regulations at 50 CFR 622.435, as identified and described below. The EFP would be effective from the date of issuance through August 1, 2020.

    Activities would consist of harvesting reef fish during a total of 450 fishing trips in the 2-year project period, of which 225 would be within the U.S. Caribbean EEZ off Puerto Rico. The remaining trips would be conducted in Puerto Rico territorial waters. Sampling sites would be randomly selected from locations with a high probability of containing habitat that could be considered essential for deep-water snappers as determined by bathymetric maps recently produced by NOAA's Marine Spatial Ecology Division. The target depth range for this project is 100 to 500 m, with sampling sites selected in each 50 m depth range throughout the overall depth range.

    Sampling would be conducted by hook-and-line drift fishing in deep-water habitats, with underwater cameras attached to the fishing line. On each fishing trip, three to seven sites would be fished per day based on distance between the sampling sites and weather, with an average of five sites per day at sea and an average of 15 days at sea per vessel. At each site, one vertical fishing line would be deployed from the commercial fishing vessel with a surface float and bottom weight for a 30 minute soak time. Twelve #9 hooks would be attached to the bottom 2 m of the line and manual snapper reels would be used to retrieve the line. A GoPro camera encased in a light-weight pressure-tested housing and a light would be attached to a small, neutrally buoyant fitting on the vertical line. This camera array would be attached to the fishing line at two separate points, approximately 3 m above the bottom weight.

    Project activities would be conducted from September 1, 2018, through August 1, 2020. The majority of sampling would occur each year in September and October. Sampling would occur at approximately 75 sites at each of the following locations in the EEZ off Puerto Rico:

    Western region: From Isabela to Puerto Real, including Isla de Desecheo Marine Reserve, within 12 miles of any point of land in Puerto Rico, from depths of 100-500 m.

    Northeast region: From San Juan to Fajardo, extending out to Isla de Culebra, within 12 miles of any point of land in Puerto Rico, from depths of 100-500 m.

    Southeast region: From Patillas to Buena Vista, extending out to Isla de Vieques, within 12 miles of any point of land in Puerto Rico, from depths of 100-500 m.

    The applicant will target queen and blackfin snappers, but anticipates encountering other species. All queen and blackfin snappers caught during the EFP would be retained, and the gonads and otoliths would be extracted for subsequent analysis by NMFS, Puerto Rico's Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, and the University of South Carolina. Length measurements would be recorded for all targeted and incidental species except for species for which harvest is prohibited under Federal law (i.e., goliath and Nassau groupers, and midnight, rainbow, and blue parrotfishes). These species would be returned immediately to the water with a minimum of harm. In order to minimize the negative biological effects of bringing these deep-water species to the surface, the commercial fishermen would have venting tools onboard their vessels to properly vent fish being released to facilitate their return to depth.

    Based on catch and effort information from the commercial sector in Puerto Rico, the applicant anticipates harvesting up to 100 specimens of both queen and blackfin snappers in each of the three sampling regions, each year. Under the EFP, the applicant would be allowed to fish for and possess blackfin snapper during the October 1 through December 31 seasonal closure in place for vermilion, black, silk, or blackfin snappers (50 CFR 622.435(a)(1)(iii)). In addition, under the EFP, the applicant would be allowed to fish for and possess queen and blackfin snappers in or from the Bajo de Sico closed area, which is located in the project's western area off Puerto Rico, during the October 1 to March 31 closure period (50 CFR 622.435(a)(2)(iv)). Based on the sampling plan, the applicant anticipates making a maximum of 10 fishing trips over the 2 year period of the EFP to the Bajo de Sico closed area during the months of October through March.

    Based on catch and effort information from the commercial sector in Puerto Rico, the applicant also anticipates catching up to 100 fish of the following species from each of the three sampling regions each year, as incidental catch: Black, silk, vermilion, and wenchman snappers (Snapper Unit 1); coney, graysby, red hind, and rock hind groupers (Grouper Unit 3); black, red, tiger, and yellowfin groupers (Grouper Unit 4), and misty and yellowedge groupers (Grouper Unit 5). It is possible that the applicant may also incidentally catch cardinal snapper, which is in Snapper Unit 2 with queen snapper, as they are targeting queen snapper and these species are frequently caught together.

    Some of these incidental species (namely, red, black, tiger, yellowfin, yellowedge, and red hind groupers and vermilion, black, and silk snappers) are also subject to seasonal closures (50 CFR 622.435(a)(1)(i) & (ii) & (iii)). The applicant does not intend to retain any of these species caught during the respective seasonal closures. However, the EFP would allow the applicant to possess these species during those closure periods for sufficient time to collect and record length measurements, consistent with the goals of the EFP. If these species were caught outside of a closed season, the contracted commercial fishers would be able retain them, consistent with applicable law. These species also may be encountered in the Bajo de Sico closed area (50 CFR 622.435(a)(2)(iv)), and the EFP would allow the applicant to possess the species during the seasonal area closure for sufficient time to collect and record length measurements. No species caught as incidental catch during the seasonal or area closures would be retained during the EFP.

    NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration based on a preliminary review. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition on conducting sampling activities within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or special management zones, without additional authorization, and requiring compliance with best practices in the event of interactions with any protected species. NMFS may also require annual reports summarizing the amount of reef fish species harvested during the seasonal and area closures, as well as during the period of effectiveness of any issued EFP. Additionally, NMFS would require any sea turtles taken incidentally during the course of the activities to be handled with due care to prevent injury to live specimens, observed for activity, and returned to the water.

    A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the affected state(s), the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Margo B. Schulze-Haugen, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15074 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG299 Nominations to the Marine Mammal Scientific Review Groups AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Secretary of Commerce established three independent regional scientific review groups (SRGs) to provide advice on a range of marine mammal science and management issues. NMFS conducted a membership review of the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific SRGs, and is soliciting nominations for new members to fill vacancies and gaps in expertise.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations can be emailed to [email protected], or mailed to: Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: SRGs.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected] Information about the SRGs, including the SRG Terms of Reference, is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/scientific-review-groups.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 117(d) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386(d)) directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish three independent regional SRGs to advise the Secretary (authority delegated to NMFS). The Alaska SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off Alaska that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Pacific SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the U.S. West Coast, Hawaiian Islands, and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific that are under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Atlantic SRG advises on marine mammals that occur in waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean that are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    SRGs members are highly qualified individuals with expertise in marine mammal biology and ecology, population dynamics and modeling, commercial fishing technology and practices, and stocks taken under section 101(b) of the MMPA. The SRGs provide expert reviews of draft marine mammal stock assessment reports and other information related to the matters identified in section 117(d)(1) of the MMPA, including:

    A. Population estimates and the population status and trends of marine mammal stocks;

    B. Uncertainties and research needed regarding stock separation, abundance, or trends, and factors affecting the distribution, size, or productivity of the stock;

    C. Uncertainties and research needed regarding the species, number, ages, gender, and reproductive status of marine mammals;

    D. Research needed to identify modifications in fishing gear and practices likely to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations;

    E. The actual, expected, or potential impacts of habitat destruction, including marine pollution and natural environmental change, on specific marine mammal species or stocks, and for strategic stocks, appropriate conservation or management measures to alleviate any such impacts; and

    F. Any other issue which the Secretary or the groups consider appropriate.

    SRG members collectively serve as independent advisors to NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provide their expert review and recommendations through participation in the SRG. Members attend annual meetings and undertake activities as independent persons providing expertise in their subject areas. Members are not appointed as representatives of professional organizations or particular stakeholder groups, including government entities, and are not permitted to represent or advocate for those organizations, groups, or entities during SRG meetings, discussions, and deliberations.

    SRG membership is voluntary; and, except for reimbursable travel and related expenses, service is without pay. The term of service for SRG members is three years, and members may serve up to three consecutive terms if reappointed.

    NMFS annually reviews the expertise available on the SRG and identifies gaps in the expertise that is needed to provide advice pursuant to section 117(d) of the MMPA. In conducting the reviews, NMFS attempts to achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, a balanced representation of viewpoints among the individuals on each SRG.

    Expertise Solicited

    For the Atlantic SRG (including waters off the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Territories in the Caribbean), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following priority areas (not in order of priority): Acoustics methodology and anthropogenic effects of sound on cetaceans; line-transect methodology, mark-recapture methods and survey design, and quantitative ecology; Gulf of Mexico/southeast U.S. bottlenose dolphin population dynamics; and manatees. Additional areas of expertise areas include marine mammal bycatch reduction, Caribbean marine mammal species, and genetics.

    For the Pacific SRG (including waters off the Pacific coast, Hawaiian Islands and the U.S. Territories in the Central and Western Pacific), NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas (not in order of priority): Marine mammal stock definition and assessment under the MMPA and ESA; abundance estimation, especially distance sampling and mark-recapture methods and survey design; West Coast and Alaska fishing gear/techniques; West Coast pinnipeds, including assessment, life history, ecology, and human-pinniped interactions; large whales, particularly with regard to entanglement issues; ocean health and veterinary expertise, especially relative to disease and habitat change; fisheries oceanography and ecology, particularly decadal and long-term understanding; quantitative ecology, population dynamics, modeling, and statistics, especially as related to abundance and bycatch estimation, Bayesian methods, applications of new technologies, and methods for data-limited circumstances; State, Tribal, or regional/local fishery and/or marine mammal entanglement issues in the Pacific Islands and West Coast states; sea otters; science-management interface, such as management approaches with imperfect data; and interdisciplinary skills combining different fields of research.

    For the Alaska SRG, NMFS seeks individuals with expertise in one or more of the following areas, in order of priority: The Alaska commercial fishing industry and commercial fishery methods/gear, particularly fisheries with marine mammal bycatch interactions; population dynamics, modeling, and statistics; and abundance estimation, especially distance sampling and mark-recapture methods and survey design; and knowledge of the MMPA and processing of marine mammal stock assessments.

    Submitting a Nomination

    Nominations for new members should be sent to Dr. Shannon Bettridge in the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES) and must be received by August 15, 2018. Nominations should be accompanied by the individual's curriculum vitae and detailed information regarding how the recommended person meets the minimum selection criteria for SRG members (see below). Nominations should also include the nominee's name, address, telephone number, and email address. Self-nominations are acceptable.

    Selection Criteria

    Although the MMPA does not explicitly prohibit Federal employees from serving as SRG members, NMFS interprets MMPA section 117(d)'s reference to the SRGs as “independent” bodies that are exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements to mean that SRGs are intended to augment existing Federal expertise and are not composed of Federal employees or contractors. Therefore, NMFS will not consider any nominee who is currently a Federal employee or a full-time contractor supporting a Federal agency.

    When reviewing nominations, NMFS, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will consider the following six criteria:

    (1) Ability to make time available for the purposes of the SRG;

    (2) Knowledge of the species (or closely related species) of marine mammals in the SRG's region;

    (3) Scientific or technical achievement in a relevant discipline, particularly the areas of expertise identified above, to be considered an expert peer reviewer for the topic;

    (4) Demonstrated experience working effectively on teams;

    (5) Expertise relevant to current and expected needs of the SRG, in particular, expertise required to provide adequate review and knowledgeable feedback on current or developing stock assessment issues, techniques, etc. In practice, this means that each member should have expertise in more than one topic as the species and scientific issues discussed in SRG meetings are diverse; and

    (6) No conflict of interest with respect to their duties as a member of the SRG.

    Next Steps

    Following review, nominees who are identified by NMFS as potential new members must be vetted and cleared in accordance with Department of Commerce policy. NMFS will contact these individuals and ask them to provide written confirmation that they are not registered Federal lobbyists or registered foreign agents, and to complete a confidential financial disclosure form, which will be reviewed by the Ethics Law and Programs Division within the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of General Counsel. All nominees will be notified of a selection decision in advance of the 2019 SRG meetings.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15064 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0023] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, 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 August 15, 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: Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Military Base Reuse Status; DD Form 2740; OMB Control Number 0790-0003.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Number of Respondents: 100.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 100.

    Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 100.

    Needs and Uses: Through the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), Department of Defense (DoD) funds are provided to communities for economic adjustment planning in response to closures and realignments of military installations. A measure of program evaluation is the monitoring of civilian job creation, and the type of redevelopment at former military installations. The respondents to the annual survey will generally be a single point of contact at the local level that is responsible for overseeing the base redevelopment effort. If this data is not collected, OEA will have no accurate, timely information regarding the civilian reuse of former military bases. As the administrator of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, OEA has a responsibility to encourage private sector use of lands and buildings to generate jobs as military activity diminishes, and to serve as a clearinghouse for reuse data.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, local, or tribal government.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15132 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary National Security Education Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Security Education Board will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public Thursday, September 6, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Nugent, (571) 256-0702 (Voice), (703) 692-2615 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is National Security Education Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 08F09-02, Alexandria, VA 22350-7000. Website: https://www.nsep.gov/content/national-security-education-board. 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 purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

    Agenda: 10:00 a.m.—Welcome and Chair Opening Remarks. 10:30 a.m.—National Security Education Program (NSEP) Programmatic Updates. 11:00 a.m.—Boren Awards: New Pathways to Building the Pipeline. 11:45 a.m.—National Language Service Corps. 12:30 p.m.—Working Lunch with Boren Scholars and Fellows. 2:00 p.m.—Language Training Centers RAND Report. 3:00 p.m.—Federal Needs and Requirements. 4:00 p.m.—Board Discussion. 4:30 p.m.—Public Comment/Adjourn.

    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.

    Written Statements: 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. Pursuant to 102-3.140 and sections 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Department of Defense National Security Education Board about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of the planned meeting. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Official for the National Security Education Board, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Designated Federal Official can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database—http://facadatabase.gov/. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Official at the address listed at least five calendar days prior to the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the National Security Education Board until its next meeting.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15136 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2018-ICCD-0074] Agency Information Collection Activities; 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 a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 14, 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-0074. 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: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 162.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 81.

    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: July 11, 2018. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15150 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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: ER18-1839-001.

    Applicants: ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Complex.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance to 8202015 to be effective 6/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1981-000.

    Applicants: Pratt Wind, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Pratt Wind, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1982-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-09_MISO 2nd Quarter Tariff Clean-Up Filing to be effective 1/1/2012.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1983-000.

    Applicants: Silver Run Electric, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Silver Run and NTD submit revisions to OATT to reflect Notice of Succession to be effective 6/27/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1984-000.

    Applicants: Big Level Wind LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 9/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1986-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Standard Large Generator Interconnection Ageement (SA No. 129) of Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-46-000.

    Applicants: Silver Run Electric, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act to Issue Securities of Silver Run Electric, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    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: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15117 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2100-187] California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Request for temporary change in recreational trail designation.

    b. Project No.: 2100-187.

    c. Date Filed: July 5, 2018.

    d. Applicant: California Department of Water Resources.

    e. Name of Project: Feather River Project.

    f. Location: Feather River in Butte County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Gwen Knittweis, California Department of Water Resources, 1416 Ninth Street, P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236, (916) 557-4554.

    i. FERC Contact: Hillary Berlin, (202) 502-8915, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is August 3, 2018. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests 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/doc-sfiling/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-2100-187.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission approval to temporarily re-designate portions of the Brad Freeman, Bidwell Canyon, Dad Beebe, and Loafer Loop recreational trails to multi-use until the reopening of the Spillway Recreation Facilities in 2019. The proposed re-designation would allow equestrian use on portions of specific trails currently designated for bicycle/hiker use only, and bicyclist use of portions of specific trails currently designated for equestrian/hiker use only. Any comments relating to project relicensing are not within the scope of this public notice and subsequent analysis.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE, as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15122 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1981-000] Pratt Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Pratt Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 30, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15120 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1984-000] Big Level Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Big Level Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 30, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15121 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000] Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Meeting

    The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will meet with representatives of the Yurok Tribe to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

    Yurok Tribe—Klamath Administrative Office, 190 Klamath Boulevard, Klamath, CA 95548, Phone: (707) 482-1350, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 10:00 a.m. PDT

    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at (202) 502-6352 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15125 Filed 7-13-18; 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: RP18-963-000.

    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Revisions to GT&C 6.14 Procedures for Allocating Available Firm Capacity to be effective 8/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/6/18.

    Accession Number: 20180706-5156.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-964-000.

    Applicants: EQT Production Company, EQT Energy, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition of EQT Production Co., et al., for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release Regulations and Tariff Provisions.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-940-002.

    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata No. 2 Empire Rate Case—June 2018 to be effective 8/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-965-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (BP37-28) to be effective 7/11/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    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: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15124 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-106-000.

    Applicants: Big Sky North, LLC.

    Description: EWG self-certification for Big Sky North, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1987-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3054R1 Upstream Wind Energy LLC GIA to be effective 6/12/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1988-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Obsidian Renewables E&P Agmt to be effective 6/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5055.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1989-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits two ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 4926 and 4927 to be effective 9/9/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1990-000.

    Applicants: Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 7/11/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    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: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15118 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202)502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-554-000 6-29-2018 Stan Knick. 2. CP15-554-000 7-3-2018 Alain San Giorgio. Exempt: 1. ER18-1314-000 6-21-2018 U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. 2. CP16-121-000 6-28-2018 U.S. Congress.1 3. CP14-96-000 7-3-2018 The New York State Agencies.2 4. P-2299-000, P-14581-000 7-5-2018 FERC Staff.3 5. P-2428-007, P-10254-026, P-10253-032 7-10-2018 FERC Staff.4 1 Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse. Congressmen James R. Langevin and David Cicilline. 2 The New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, Department of Public Service, Department of Health, and Department of Environmental Conservation. 3 Telephone memorandum dated July 5, 2018 reporting call with John Devine with HDR Engineering. 4 Clarification request memo dated July 10, 2018 reporting communication with applicants Kevin Webb and Beth Harris with Enel Green. Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15123 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000] Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Meeting

    The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will meet with representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

    North Bend Public Library—Big Meeting Room, 1800 Sherman Avenue, North Bend, OR 97459, Phone: (541) 756-0400, Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 1:00 p.m. PDT

    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at (202) 502-6352 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15126 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000] Notice of Meeting; Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP; Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP

    The environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) along with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will meet with representatives of the Karuk Tribe to discuss the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Pipeline Projects. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed below:

    Karuk Tribe—Headway Building, 64236 Second Avenue, Happy Camp, CA 96039, Phone: (530) 493-5322, Wednesday, July 18, 2018, 3:30 p.m. PDT

    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding may attend and observe this meeting; however, participation will be limited to tribal representatives and agency personnel. If tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into the Commission's administrative record.

    If you plan to attend this meeting, please contact Mr. John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager at (202) 502-6352 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15127 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1977-000] Brantley Farm Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Brantley Farm Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 30, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15119 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-511-000] Dakota Natural Gas, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 28, 2018, Dakota Natural Gas, LLC (DNG), P.O. Box 68, Le Sueur, Minnesota 56058, filed in Docket No. CP18-511-000 an application pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting a service area determination so that it may expand or enlarge its facilities with or without further Commission authorization. DNG is a recently formed local distribution company (LDC) which aims to serve customers primarily in Drayton, North Dakota. In order to serve customers in Drayton, DNG would need to construct approximately 17.3 miles of new pipeline facilities, of which 9.3 miles would be located in Minnesota, running west from an interconnect with Viking Gas Transmission Company at a Town Border Station northwest of Donaldson, Minnesota to the Minnesota-North Dakota Border, with an additional 1.5-mile segment running from the Minnesota-North Dakota border to a regulator station north of Drayton. The remaining 6.5 miles of pipeline would run south from the regulator station to the city of Drayton. DNG also requests that the Commission determine that DNG qualifies as an LDC for the purposes of transportation under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 and that it be granted waiver of all reporting and accounting requirements, as well as other rules and regulations that are normally applicable to natural gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

    The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Jason T. Gray, Gray, Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer, & Pembroke, P.C., 1615 M Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036, by telephone at (202) 467-6370, by fax at (202) 467-6379, or by email at [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 31, 2018.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15128 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [9977-46-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Commonwealth of Massachusetts AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA approves the authorized program revision for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation as of August 15, 2018, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency. EPA approves the other authorized program revisions/modifications as of July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Devon Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-2603, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On September 8, 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) submitted an application titled “EEA ePLACE Platform” for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed MassDEP's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Massachusetts's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 50-52, 61-63, 65, 70, 141, 144, 146, 240-259, 260-270, 272-279, and 280, is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 52—Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

    Part 61—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M, Asbestos;

    Part 62—Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;

    Part 63—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories;

    Part 70—State Operating Permit Programs;

    Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation;

    Part 145—State Underground Injection Control Programs;

    Part 239—Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy;

    Part 271—Requirements for Authorization of State Hazardous: Waste Program; and

    Part 281—Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks.

    Specifically, EPA has approved the state's authorized program revisions for electronic submissions that include a handwritten signature on a separate paper submission report instead of an electronic signature.

    MassDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Also, in this notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations implementation program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f), to allow for electronic reporting. Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request; (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15135 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096; FRL—9980-55-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (EPA ICR No. 2002.07, OMB Control No. 2025-0003), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on January 19, 2018 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Devon Martin, Office of Environmental Information (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: This ICR addresses the electronic reporting components of the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), which is designed to: (i) Allow EPA to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998; (ii) provide a uniform, technology-neutral framework for electronic reporting across all EPA programs; (iii) allow EPA programs to offer electronic reporting as they become ready for CROMERR; and (iv) provide states with a streamlined process—together with a uniform set of standards—for approval of their electronic reporting provisions for all their EPA-authorized programs. Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. In order to accommodate CBI, the information collected must be in accordance with the confidentiality regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Additionally, EPA will ensure that the information collection procedures comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the OMB Circular 108.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities that report electronically to EPA and state or local government authorized programs; and state and local government authorized programs implementing electronic reporting.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) established to ensure compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 175,047 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 83,837 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $4,055,829 (per year), including $569,916 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 34,233 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase occurred primarily because of the launch of substantial new e-reporting systems by EPA, such as lead-based paint abatement notifications, and the anticipated launch of the e-Manifest system. Additionally, based on consultations with industry and state, tribal, and local agencies, EPA increased some of the previous burden estimates to reflect a more realistic average.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15134 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 8, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Hometown Bancorp, Ltd., Fond du Lac, Wisconsin; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of United Community Bank, Poynette, Wisconsin.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Cross County Bancshares, Wynne, Arkansas; to acquire up to 35 percent of the voting shares of Central Bank, Little Rock, Arkansas.

    2. First Capital, Inc., Corydon, Indiana; to acquire 5.15 percent of the voting shares of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc., Evansville, Indiana; and thereby indirectly acquire First Federal Savings Bank, Evansville, Indiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 11, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15108 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1614] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Resolution Planning Guidance for Eight Large, Complex U.S. Banking Organizations AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Proposed guidance; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board and the FDIC (together, the “Agencies”) are inviting comments on proposed guidance for the 2019 and subsequent resolution plan submissions by the eight largest, complex U.S. banking organizations (“Covered Companies” or “firms”). The proposed guidance is meant to assist these firms in developing their resolution plans, which are required to be submitted pursuant to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The proposed guidance, which is largely based on prior guidance issued to these Covered Companies, describes the Agencies' expectations regarding a number of key vulnerabilities in plans for an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (i.e., capital; liquidity; governance mechanisms; operational; legal entity rationalization and separability; and derivatives and trading activities). The proposed guidance also updates certain aspects of prior guidance based on the Agencies' review of these firms' recent resolution plan submissions. The Agencies invite public comment on all aspects of the proposed guidance.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments jointly to both Agencies. Comments should be directed to: Board: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OP-1614, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Website: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

    Email: [email protected]. Include docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments will be made available on the Board's website at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfms submitted, unless modified for technical reasons or to remove personal information at the commenter's request. Accordingly, comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW (between 18th and 19th Street NW), between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    FDIC: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Agency Website: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Website.

    Email: [email protected]. Include “Proposed 165(d) Guidance for the Domestic Firms” on the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

    Public Inspection: All comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted generally without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Board: Michael Hsu, Associate Director, (202) 452-4330, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Jay Schwarz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2970, Will Giles, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-3351, or Steve Bowne, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3900, Legal Division. Users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call (202) 263-4869.

    FDIC: Mike J. Morgan, Corporate Expert, [email protected], CFI Oversight Branch, Division of Risk Management Supervision; Alexandra Steinberg Barrage, Associate Director, Resolution Strategy and Policy, Office of Complex Financial Institutions, [email protected]; David N. Wall, Assistant General Counsel, [email protected]; Pauline E. Calande, Senior Counsel, [email protected]; or Celia Van Gorder, Supervisory Counsel, [email protected], Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(d)) and the jointly issued implementing regulation, 12 CFR part 243 and 12 CFR part 381 (“the Rule”), requires certain financial companies to report periodically to the Board and the FDIC their plans for rapid and orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the event of material financial distress or failure.

    Among other requirements, the Rule requires each financial company's resolution plan to include a strategic analysis of the plan's components, a description of the range of specific actions the company proposes to take in resolution, and a description of the company's organizational structure, material entities and interconnections and interdependencies. The Rule also requires that resolution plans include a confidential section that contains confidential supervisory and proprietary information submitted to the Board and the FDIC (together, the “Agencies”), and a section that the Agencies make available to the public. Public sections of resolution plans can be found on the Agencies' websites.1

    1 See the public sections of resolution plans submitted to the Agencies at www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/resolutionplans.htm and www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/resplans/.

    Objectives of the Resolution Planning Process

    The goal of the Dodd-Frank Act resolution planning process is to help ensure that a firm's failure would not have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States. Specifically, the resolution planning process requires firms to demonstrate that they have adequately assessed the challenges that their structure and business activities pose to resolution and that they have taken action to address those issues. Management should also consider resolvability as part of day-to-day decision making, particularly those related to structure, business activities, capital and liquidity allocation, and governance. In addition, firms are expected to maintain a meaningful set of options for selling operations and business lines to generate resources and to allow for restructuring under stress, including through the sale or wind down of discrete businesses that could further minimize the direct impact of distress or failure on the broader financial system. While these measures cannot guarantee that a firm's resolution would be simple or smoothly executed, these preparations can help ensure that the firm could be resolved under bankruptcy without government support or imperiling the broader financial system.

    The Rule describes an iterative process aimed at strengthening the resolution planning capabilities of each financial institution. With respect to the eight largest, complex U.S. banking organizations (“Covered Companies” or “firms”),2 the Agencies have previously provided guidance and other feedback.3 In general, the feedback was intended to assist firms in their development of future resolution plan submissions and to provide additional clarity with respect to the expectations against which the Agencies will evaluate the resolution plan submissions. The Agencies are now proposing to update aspects of prior guidance based on the Agencies' review of the firms' recent resolution plan submissions.4 The Agencies reviewed the 2017 Plans and issued a letter to each firm indicating that it had taken important steps to enhance its resolvability and facilitate its orderly resolution in bankruptcy.5 As a result of those reviews and following the Agencies' joint decisions in December 2017, the Agencies identified four areas where more work may need to be done to improve the resolvability of the firms.6 As described below, the Agencies are proposing updates to two areas of the guidance regarding payment, clearing, and settlement services and derivatives and trading activities. The Agencies intend to provide additional information on the two other areas: Intra-group liquidity and internal loss absorbing capacity. The Agencies invite public comment on all aspects of the proposed guidance.

    2 Bank of America Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company.

    3 This includes Guidance for 2013 § 165(d) Annual Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies that Submitted Initial Resolution Plans in 2012; detailed guidance and firm-specific feedback in August 2014 and February 2015 for the development of firms' 2015 resolution plan submissions; and Guidance for 2017 § 165(d) Annual Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies that Submitted Resolution Plans in July 2015, including the frequently asked questions that were published in response to the Guidance for the 2017 Plan Submissions (taken together, “prior guidance”).

    4 Each firm's resolution strategy is designed to have the parent company recapitalize and provide liquidity resources to its material entity subsidiaries prior to entering bankruptcy proceedings. This strategy calls for material entities to be provided with sufficient capital and liquidity resources to allow them to avoid multiple competing insolvencies and maintain continuity of operations throughout resolution.

    5See Letters dated December 19, 2017, from the Board and FDIC to Bank of America Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm.

    6Id.

    II. Overview of the Proposed Guidance

    The proposed guidance is organized into six substantive areas, consistent with the guidance the Agencies provided to Covered Companies in April 2016 to assist in the development of their 2017 resolution plans, Guidance for 2017 § 165(d) Annual Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies that Submitted Resolution Plans in July 2015 (“2016 Guidance”).7 These areas are:

    7Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20160413a1.pdf and at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2016/pr16031b.pdf.

    1. Capital 2. Liquidity 3. Governance mechanisms 4. Operational 5. Legal entity rationalization and separability 6. Derivatives and trading activities

    Each area is important to firms in resolution as each plays a part in helping to ensure that the firm can be resolved in an orderly manner. The guidance would describe the Agencies' expectations for each of these areas.

    The proposed guidance is largely consistent with the 2016 Guidance, which the Covered Companies used to develop their 2017 resolution plan submissions. Accordingly, the firms have already incorporated significant aspects of the proposed guidance into their resolution planning. The proposal would update the derivatives and trading activities (DER), and payment, clearing, and settlement activities (PCS) areas of the 2016 Guidance based on the Agencies' review of the Covered Companies' 2017 plans. It would also make minor clarifications to certain areas of the 2016 Guidance. In general, the proposed revisions to the guidance are intended to streamline the firms' submissions and to provide additional clarity. The proposed guidance is not meant to limit firms' consideration of additional vulnerabilities or obstacles that might arise based on a firm's particular structure, operations, or resolution strategy and that should be factored into the firm's submission.

    Capital: The ability to provide sufficient capital to material entities without disruption from creditors is important in order to ensure that material entities can continue to provide critical services and maintain critical operations as the firm is resolved. The proposal describes expectations concerning the appropriate positioning of capital and other loss-absorbing instruments (e.g., debt that the parent may forgive or convert to equity) among the material entities within the firm (resolution capital adequacy and positioning or RCAP). The proposal also describes expectations regarding a methodology for periodically estimating the amount of capital that may be needed to support each material entity after the bankruptcy filing (resolution capital execution need or RCEN).

    Liquidity: A firm's ability to reliably estimate and meet its liquidity needs prior to, and in, resolution is important to the execution of a Covered Company's resolution strategy in that it enables the firm to respond quickly to demands from stakeholders and counterparties, including regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions and financial market utilities. Maintaining sufficient and appropriately-positioned liquidity also allows the subsidiaries to continue to operate while the firm is being resolved in accordance with the firm's preferred resolution strategy.8

    8 The Agencies are currently taking steps to better understand the purpose and treatment of the firms' inter-affiliate transactions. The Agencies do not expect the firms to make major changes to their RLAP and RLEN models until after the Agencies have completed this review and provided further feedback.

    Governance Mechanisms: An adequate governance structure with triggers capable of identifying the onset of financial stress events is important to ensure that there is sufficient time to allow firms to prepare for resolution, and to ensure the timely execution of their preferred resolution strategies. The governance mechanism section proposes expectations that firms have playbooks that detail the board and senior management actions necessary to execute the firm's preferred strategy. In addition, the proposal describes expectations that firms have triggers that are linked to specific actions outlined in these playbooks to ensure the timely escalation of information to senior management and the board, to address the successful recapitalization of subsidiaries prior to the parent's bankruptcy to the extent called for by the firm's preferred resolution strategy, and to address how the firm would ensure the timely execution of a bankruptcy filing. The proposal also describes the expectations that firms identify and analyze potential legal challenges to the provision of capital and liquidity to subsidiaries that would precede the parent's bankruptcy filing, and any defenses and mitigants to such challenges. In addition, the proposal describes expectations that firms incorporate any developments from this analysis in their governance playbooks.

    Legal entity rationalization and separability: It is important that firms maintain a structure that facilitates orderly resolution. To achieve this, the proposal states that a firm should develop criteria supporting the preferred resolution strategy and integrate them into day-to-day decision making processes. The criteria would be expected to consider the best alignment of legal entities and business lines and facilitate resolvability as a firm's activities, technology, business models, or geographic footprint change over time. In addition, the proposed guidance provides that the firm should identify discrete and actionable operations that could be sold or transferred in resolution to provide meaningful optionality for the resolution strategy under a range of potential failure scenarios.

    Operational: The development and maintenance of operational capabilities is important to support and enable execution of a firm's preferred resolution strategy, including providing for the continuation of critical operations and preventing or mitigating adverse impacts on U.S. financial stability. The proposed operational capabilities include:

    Possessing fully developed capabilities related to managing, identifying, and valuing the collateral that is received from, and posted to, external parties and its affiliates;

    Having management information systems that readily produce key data on financial resources and positions on a legal entity basis, and that ensure data integrity and reliability;

    Developing a clear set of actions to be taken to maintain payment, clearing and settlement activities and to maintain access to financial market utilities, as further discussed below; and

    Maintaining an actionable plan to ensure the continuity of all of the shared and outsourced services that their critical operations rely on.

    In addition, the proposed guidance provides that a firm should analyze and address legal issues that may arise in connection with emergency motions the firm anticipates filing at the outset of its bankruptcy case seeking relief needed to pursue its preferred resolution strategy, including legal precedent and evidentiary support the firm expects to provide in support of such motions, key regulatory actions, and contingency arrangements.

    Derivatives and trading activities: It is important that a firm's derivatives and trading activities can be stabilized and de-risked during resolution without causing significant market disruption. As such, firms should have capabilities to identify and mitigate the risks associated with their derivatives and trading activities and with the implementation of their preferred strategies, as further discussed below.

    Question 1: Do the topics in the proposed guidance discussed above represent the key vulnerabilities of the Covered Companies in resolution? If not, what key vulnerabilities are not captured?

    III. Proposed Changes to Prior Guidance

    In addition to making some clarifications, this proposal differs from prior guidance in that it reflects enhancements informed by the Agencies' review of the Covered Companies 2017 plans in the areas of DER and PCS.

    The following description summarizes the changes relative to the topics outlined in the 2016 Guidance to which the Agencies are seeking comment and, where relevant, provides additional detail:

    Operational: Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Activities

    The provision of PCS by firms, financial market utilities (FMUs), and agent banks is an essential component of the U.S. financial system, and maintaining the continuity of PCS services is important for the orderly resolution of firms. Prior guidance from the Agencies indicated that a firm's resolution plan submissions should describe arrangements to facilitate continued access to PCS services through the firm's resolution.

    Based upon recent resolution plan submissions and the Agencies' engagement with the firms, the Agencies believe that the firms have developed capabilities to identify and consider the risks associated with continuity of access to PCS services in resolution. All of the firms described methodologies to identify key FMUs and agent banks based on quantitative and qualitative criteria and included playbooks for identified key FMUs or agent banks. These playbooks described potential adverse actions that could be taken by the FMU or agent bank, described possible contingency arrangements, and discussed the operational and financial impacts of such actions or arrangements, all of which were enhanced by the firms' direct communications with these FMUs and agent banks. The proposed PCS guidance clarifies the expectations of the Agencies with respect to a firm's capabilities to maintain continued access to PCS services through a framework. Considering the firms' earlier resolution plan submissions, the firms have the methodologies and capabilities in place to address these expectations.

    Framework. The proposal states that firms should demonstrate capabilities for maintaining continued access to PCS services through a framework that incorporates the identification of key clients,9 FMUs, and agent banks, using both quantitative 10 and qualitative criteria, and the development of a playbook for each key FMU and agent bank. The proposed guidance builds upon existing guidance by specifying that the framework should consider key clients (which may include affiliates of the firm) and agent banks. The Agencies note that, although the existing guidance did not expressly suggest the identification of key agent banks and playbooks for such agent banks, the firms considered agent bank relationships and each provided a playbook for at least one key agent bank in its most recent resolution plan submission. Because agent bank relationships may essentially replicate PCS services provided by FMUs, the Agencies propose to revise the PCS guidance to include the identification and development of playbooks for key agent banks.

    9 A client is an individual or entity, including affiliates of the firm, that relies upon continued access to the firm's PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered in connection with those services. As a result, key clients may not necessarily be limited to wholesale clients.

    10 Examples of quantitative criteria include not only the aggregate volumes and values of all transactions processed through an FMU but also assets under custody with an agent bank, the value of cash and securities settled through an agent bank, and extensions of intraday credit.

    In applying the framework, the firm would be expected to consider its role as a user and/or a provider of PCS services. The proposal refers to a user of PCS services as a firm that accesses the services of an FMU through its own membership in that FMU or through the membership of another firm that provides PCS services on an agency basis. A firm is a provider of PCS services under the proposed guidance if it provides its clients with access to an FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership in or relationship with that service provider. A firm also would be a provider if it delivers PCS services critical to a client through the firm's own operations in a manner similar to an FMU.

    The proposal provides that a firm's framework should take into account the various relationships the firm and its key clients have with those key FMUs and agent banks by providing a mapping of material entities, critical operations, core business lines, and key clients to key FMUs and agent banks. This framework would be expected to consider both direct relationships (e.g., firm's direct membership in the FMU, firm provides key clients with critical PCS services through its own operations, firm's contractual relationship with an agent bank) and indirect relationships (e.g., firm provides its clients with access to the relevant FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership in or relationship with that FMU or agent bank).

    By developing and evaluating these activities and relationships through a framework that incorporates the elements above, a firm should be able to consider the issue of maintaining continuity of PCS services in a systematic manner.

    Question 2: Is the guidance sufficiently clear with respect to the following concepts: Scope of PCS services, user vs. provider, direct vs. indirect relationships? What additional clarifications or alternatives concerning the proposed framework or its elements, if any, should the Agencies consider? For instance, would further examples of ways that firms may act as provider of PCS services be useful? Should the Agencies consider further distinguishing between providers based on the type of PCS service they provide?

    Playbooks for Continued Access to PCS Services. Firms also would be expected to provide a playbook for each key FMU and agent bank that addresses financial considerations and includes operational detail that would assist the firm in maintaining continued access to PCS services for itself and its clients in stress and in resolution. Under the proposal, each key FMU and agent bank playbook would be expected to provide analysis of the financial and operational impact to the firm's material entities and key clients due to a loss of access to the FMU or agent bank. Each playbook also should discuss any possible alternative arrangements that would allow the firm and its key clients to maintain continued access to PCS services in resolution. However, the firm is not expected to incorporate a scenario in which it loses FMU or agent bank access into its preferred resolution strategy or its RLEN/RCEN estimates.

    Firms communicated with key FMUs and agent banks in preparing their most recent resolution plan submissions and indicated that such communication was helpful in refining their analysis concerning potential adverse actions and contingency arrangements. Firms would be expected to continue to engage with key FMUs, agent banks, and clients, and playbooks would be expected to reflect any feedback received during such ongoing outreach. Firms are encouraged to continue engaging with each other, key FMUs and agent banks, and other stakeholders to identify possible initiatives or additional ways to support continued access to PCS services.

    The proposed guidance differentiates the type of information to be included in a firm's key FMU and agent bank playbooks based on whether a firm is a user of PCS services with respect to that FMU or agent bank, a provider of PCS services with respect to that FMU or agent bank, or both. To the extent a firm is both a user and a provider of PCS services with respect to a particular FMU or agent bank, the firm would be expected to provide the described content for both users and providers of PCS services. A firm would be able to do so either in the same playbook or in separate playbooks included in its resolution plan submission.

    Content related to Users of PCS Services. Under the proposal, each playbook for an individual FMU or agent bank should include, at a minimum, a description of the firm's relationship as a user with the key FMU or agent bank and an identification and mapping of PCS services to the associated material entities, critical operations, and core business lines that use those PCS services, as well as a discussion of the potential range of adverse actions that could be taken by that key FMU or agent bank in a period of stress for the firm or upon the firm's resolution.11 Playbooks submitted as part of the firms' most recent resolution plan submissions mapped the PCS services provided to material entities, critical operations, and core business lines at a fairly granular level, which enhanced the utility of these playbooks.

    11 Potential adverse actions may include increased collateral and margin requirements and enhanced reporting and monitoring.

    In discussing the potential range of adverse actions that a key FMU or agent bank could take, each playbook would be expected to address the operational and financial impact of such actions on each material entity and discuss contingency arrangements that the firm may initiate in response to such actions by the key FMU or key agent bank. Operational impacts may include effects on governance mechanisms or resource allocation (including human resources), as well as any expected enhanced communication with key stakeholders (e.g., regulators, FMUs and agent banks). Financial impacts may include those directly associated with liquidity or any additional costs incurred by the firm as a result of such adverse actions and contingency arrangements. The proposed PCS guidance specifies that each playbook should discuss PCS-related liquidity sources and uses in business-as-usual (BAU), in stress, and in the resolution period. Each firm would be expected to determine the relevant measurement points, and this information would be presented by currency type (with U.S. dollar equivalent) and by material entity. Each playbook also would be expected to describe any account features that might restrict the firm's ready access to its intraday liquidity sources, the firm's ability to control intraday liquidity outflows, and the firm's capabilities to identify and prioritize time-specific payments.

    Content related to Providers of PCS Services. Under the proposal, a firm that is a direct or indirect provider of PCS services would be expected to identify key clients that rely upon PCS services provided by the firm in its playbook for the relevant FMU or agent bank. Playbooks would be expected to describe the scale and manner in which the firm's material entities, critical operations, and core business lines provide PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered by the firm in connection with such services. Similar to the playbook content expected of users of PCS services, each playbook would be expected to include a mapping of the PCS services provided to each material entity, critical operation, core business line, and key clients. In the case where a firm is a provider of PCS services through its own operations, the firm would expected to produce a playbook for the material entity that provides those services, and the playbook would focus on continuity of access for its key clients.

    The proposal states that playbooks should discuss the potential range of contingency arrangements available to the firm to minimize disruption to its provision of PCS services to its clients and the financial and operational impacts of such arrangements. Contingency arrangements may include viable transfer of client activity and any related assets or any alternative arrangements that would allow the firm's key clients to maintain continued access to critical PCS services. The playbook also would be expected to describe the range of contingency actions that the firm may take concerning its provision of intraday credit to key clients and to provide analysis quantifying the potential liquidity that the firm could generate by taking each such action in stress and in the resolution period. To the extent a firm would not take any such actions as part of its preferred resolution strategy, the firm would be expected to describe its reasons for not taking any contingency action.

    Under the proposal, a firm should communicate the potential impacts of implementation of any identified contingency arrangements or alternatives to its key clients, and playbooks should describe the firm's methodology for determining whether it should provide any additional communication to some or all key clients (e.g., due to the client's usage of that access and/or related extensions of credit), as well as the expected timing and form of such communication. The Agencies note that in their most recent submissions, all of the firms addressed the issue of client communications and provided descriptions of planned or existing client communications, with some firms submitting specific samples of such communication. Firms would be expected to consider any benefit of communicating this information in multiple forms (e.g., verbal, written) and at multiple time periods (e.g., BAU, stress, some point in time in advance of taking contingency actions) in order to provide adequate notice to key clients of the action and the potential impact on the client of that action. In making decisions concerning communications to its key clients, the proposal states that firms also should consider any benefit of tailoring communications to different subsets of clients (e.g., based on different levels of activity or credit usage) in form, timing, or both. Playbooks may include sample client contracts or agreements containing provisions related to the firm's provision of intraday credit or liquidity.12 Such sample contracts or agreements may be particularly important to the extent that the firm believes those documents sufficiently convey to clients the contingency arrangements available to the firm and the potential impacts of implementing such contingency arrangements.

    12 If these sample client contracts or agreements are included separately as part of the firm's resolution plan submission, they may be incorporated into the playbook by reference.

    Question 3: Are the Agencies' expectations with respect to playbook content for firms that are users or providers (or both) of PCS services sufficiently clear? What additional clarifications, alternatives, or additional information, if any, should the Agencies consider?

    Question 4: Should the guidance indicate that providers of PCS activities are expected to expressly consider particular contingency arrangements (e.g., methods to transfer client activity to other firms with whom the clients have relationships, alternate agent bank relationships)? Should the guidance also indicate that firms should expressly consider particular actions they may take concerning the provision of intraday credit to affiliate and third-party clients, such as requiring pre-funding? If so, what particular actions should these firms address?

    Question 5: Specifically for users of PCS activities, should the guidance indicate that firms are expected to expressly include particular PCS-related liquidity sources and uses such as client pre-funding, or specific abilities to control intraday liquidity inflows and outflows (e.g., throttling or prioritizing of payments)? If so, what particular sources and uses should firms be expected to include?

    Question 6: Specifically for providers of PCS services are the Agencies' expectations concerning a firm's communication to its key clients (including affiliates as applicable) of the potential impacts of implementation of identified contingency arrangements sufficiently clear? What additional clarifications, if any, should the Agencies consider? Should the Agencies expect firms to communicate this information at specific times or in specific formats?

    Derivatives and Trading Activities

    This section of the proposed guidance is intended to explain expectations for Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo & Company (each, a “dealer firm”).13

    13 Dealer firms share many quantitative and qualitative characteristics. For example, each dealer firm is a Covered Company that (as of December 31, 2017) (i) has total derivatives notional values greater than $5 trillion, (ii) has global gross market value of derivatives greater than $20 billion, (iii) has a sum of global trading assets and trading liabilities greater than $110 billion (each on the basis of a 3-year rolling average), (iv) is subject to the GSIB Surcharge and all components of the CCAR quantitative assessment (i.e., global market shock and counterparty default scenario components), and (v) is parent to a designated primary dealer.

    The size, scope, complexity, and opacity of a firm's global derivatives and trading activities may present significant risk to resolvability. To facilitate an orderly resolution, a dealer firm should be able to demonstrate the ability to stabilize and de-risk its derivatives and trading activities during resolution without posing a threat to U.S. financial stability. Therefore, dealer firms have developed capabilities to identify and mitigate the risks associated with their derivatives and trading activities and with the implementation of their preferred resolution strategies. These capabilities seek to facilitate a dealer firm's planning, preparedness, and execution of an orderly resolution. The proposed guidance would clarify the Agencies' expectations with respect to such capabilities and a firm's analysis of its preferred strategy. The proposed guidance also would eliminate the expectations of the 2016 Guidance that a dealer firm's resolution plan include separate passive and active wind-down scenario analyses, the agency-specified data templates, and rating agency playbooks.

    Over the past several years, the Agencies have engaged significantly with dealer firms to assess their resolution capabilities and to provide feedback with respect to their resolution preparedness. As a group, dealer firms have made meaningful improvements over previous resolution plan submissions. These improvements include efforts by dealer firms to enhance their resolution capabilities related to derivatives and trading activities and to integrate those capabilities with their business-as-usual practices. The expectations set out in this section of the proposed guidance reflect many of those improvements. As described in more detail below, this section of the proposed guidance is organized in five subsections. The first four of the subsections describe expectations for resolution capabilities that are commensurate with the size, scope and complexity of a firm's derivatives portfolios and should help assure that dealer firms maintain the operational preparedness to implement an orderly resolution. The fifth subsection—derivatives stabilization and de-risking strategy—describes expectations for a dealer firm's analysis of its approach to managing its derivatives portfolios in an orderly resolution.

    Booking practices. To minimize uncertainty and avoid excessive complexity and opacity that can frustrate a firm's resolution preparedness, a dealer firm's resolution capabilities should include booking practices commensurate with the size, scope and complexity of a firm's derivatives portfolios. Dealer firms are currently developing booking practices that provide timely and up-to-date information regarding the structure, risks and resource needs associated with the management of its derivatives activities under a broad range of potential stress and failure scenarios. Therefore, the proposed guidance would clarify the capabilities a dealer firm is expected to have related to its booking practices, including descriptions of its comprehensive booking model framework and demonstrations of its ability to identify, assess, and report on each entity with derivatives portfolios (a “derivatives entity”).14

    14 Consistent with prior guidance, “derivatives entities” should include both material and non-material entities, in part because non-material entities, in the aggregate, may represent significant exposures.

    Inter-affiliate risk monitoring and controls. Affiliates of a derivatives entity may be forced to discontinue a trading relationship with that derivatives entity during resolution, which poses risks to the orderly resolution of a firm. The proposal describes the Agencies' expectations that a dealer firm address this risk by being able to provide timely transparency into the current risk transfers between affiliates and the resolvability risks related to such transfers, including expectations regarding an inter-affiliate market risk framework that enables the firm to monitor and limit the exposures a derivatives entity that is a material entity could experience in an extreme resolution scenario.

    Portfolio segmentation and forecasting. The ability to quickly and reliably identify problematic derivatives positions and portfolios is critical to minimizing uncertainty and forecasting resource needs to enable an orderly resolution. Each dealer firm has developed various modeling approaches that are used to evidence the adequacy of the capabilities and resources needed to execute its preferred resolution strategy. The utility of these modeled results is often affected by the scope of readily available data on the underlying characteristics of a dealer firm's derivatives portfolios. Therefore, the proposal confirms that a dealer firm should have the capabilities to produce analysis that reflects granular portfolio segmentation and differentiation of assumptions taking into account trade-level characteristics. Similarly, the proposed guidance also provides additional detail regarding other segmentation and forecasting related capabilities that the dealer firm's resolution plan should describe and demonstrate. These capabilities include (i) a method and supporting systems capabilities for categorizing and ranking the ease of exit for its derivatives positions (“ease of exit” position analysis), (ii) the systems capabilities to apply the firm's exit cost methodology to its firm-wide derivatives portfolio (application of exit cost methodology), (iii) capabilities to assess the operational resources and forecast the costs related to its current derivatives activities (analysis of operational capacity), and (iv) a method to apply sensitivity analyses to the key drivers of the derivatives-related costs and liquidity flows under its preferred resolution strategy (sensitivity analysis).

    Prime brokerage customer account transfers. The rapid withdrawal from a firm by prime brokerage clients can contribute to a disorderly resolution. Dealer firms' resolution plans should address the risk that during a resolution the firm's prime brokerage clients may seek to withdraw or transfer customer accounts balances in rates significantly higher than normal business conditions. The proposed guidance confirms that dealer firms should have the capabilities to facilitate the orderly transfer of prime brokerage account balances to peer prime brokers and describes the Agencies' related expectations in greater detail. In particular, the proposed guidance clarifies that a dealer firm's resolution plan should describe and demonstrate its ability to segment and analyze the quality and composition of such account balances and to rank account balances according to their potential transfer speed.

    Derivatives stabilization and de-risking strategy. A key risk to the orderly resolution of a dealer firm is a volatile and risky derivatives portfolio. In the event of material financial distress or failure, the resolvability risks related to a dealer firm's derivatives and trading activities would be a key obstacle to the firm's rapid and orderly resolution. Dealer firms' resolution plans should address this obstacle. The proposed guidance confirms that a dealer firm's plan should provide a detailed analysis of the strategy to stabilize and de-risk its derivatives portfolios (“derivatives strategy”) and provides additional detail regarding the Agencies' expectations.15 In particular, the proposed guidance clarifies that a dealer firm should incorporate into its derivatives strategy assumptions consistent with the lack of access to the bilateral OTC derivatives market at the start of its resolution period. The proposed guidance also confirms or clarifies expectations related to other elements that should be addressed in the firm's analysis of its derivatives strategy, including the incorporation of resource needs into RLEN and RCEN (forecast of resource needs), an analysis of any potential derivatives portfolio remaining after the resolution period (potential residual derivatives portfolio), and the impact (including on non-U.S. jurisdictions) from the assumed failure of a material derivatives entity (non-surviving material entity analysis).16

    15 Subject to the certain constraints, a firm's derivatives strategy may take the form of a going-concern strategy, an accelerated de-risking strategy (e.g., active wind-down) or an alternative, third strategy so long as the firm's resolution plan adequately supports the executability of the chosen strategy.

    16 From the perspective of protecting U.S. financial stability, the risk of adverse regulatory actions that could impede an orderly resolution increases where a material entity's failure would have extraordinary impacts on local markets. Therefore, analysis of non-surviving material entities located in a non-U.S. jurisdiction should contemplate the impact on local markets.

    Question 7: Do the proposed changes relative to the 2016 Guidance provide sufficient clarity or are additional clarifications required?

    Consolidation of Existing Guidance

    In addition to the 2016 Guidance, the Agencies have also issued: the Guidance for 2013 § 165(d) Annual Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies that Submitted Initial Resolution Plans in 2012 (the “2013 Guidance”); firm-specific feedback letters issued in 2014 and 2016; and the February 2015 staff communication regarding the 2016 plan submissions. The Agencies are considering consolidating all applicable guidance into a single document, which would provide the public with one source of applicable guidance to which to refer. The Agencies would also expect to incorporate aspects of the Resolution Plan Frequently Asked Questions issued May 2017 that may remain applicable.17 For example, the Agencies could add a section to the proposed guidance that includes the aspects of the 2013 Guidance that should remain applicable, such as the plan format description in the “Format of 2013 Plan” and “Additional Format and Content Guidance” sections, some of the central assumptions and stress scenarios in the “Assumptions” and “Stress Scenarios” sections, the process for addressing expected global cooperation described in the “Global Cooperation” section, and the considerations for identifying material entities in the “Material Entities” section.

    17https://www.fdic.gov/resauthority/2017faqsguidance.pdf; https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/resolution-plan-faqs.pdf.

    Question 8: Should the Agencies consolidate all applicable guidance? If so, which aspects of the other guidance warrant inclusion, additional clarification or modification?

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Certain provisions of the Rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, a respondent is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Agencies believe that the proposed changes to the 2016 Guidance would not result in an increase in information collection burden to the Covered Companies. The Agencies invite public comment on this assessment.

    TEXT OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR EIGHT LARGE, COMPLEX U.S. BANKING ORGANIZATIONS Resolution Planning Guidance for Eight Large, Complex U.S. Banking Organizations I. Introduction II. Capital a. Resolution Capital Adequacy and Positioning (RCAP) b. Resolution Capital Execution Need (RCEN) III. Liquidity a. Resolution Liquidity Adequacy and Positioning (RLAP) b. Resolution Liquidity Execution Need (RLEN) IV. Governance Mechanisms a. Playbooks and Triggers b. Pre-Bankruptcy Parent Support V. Operational a. Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Activities b. Managing, Identifying, and Valuing Collateral c. Management Information Systems d. Shared and Outsourced Services e. Legal Obstacles Associated with Emergency Motions VI. Legal Entity Rationalization and Separability a. Legal Entity Rationalization Criteria (LER Criteria) b. Separability VII. Derivatives and Trading Activities a. Booking Practices b. Inter-Affiliate Risk Monitoring and Controls c. Portfolio Segmentation and Forecasting d. Prime Brokerage Customer Account Transfers e. Derivatives Stabilization and De-risking Strategy VIII. Public Section I. Introduction

    Resolution Plan Requirement: Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(d)) requires certain financial companies (“Covered Companies”) to report periodically to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve” or “Board”) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) (together “the Agencies”) the Companies' 18 Plans for Rapid and Orderly Resolution in the event of Material Financial Distress or failure. On November 1, 2011, the Agencies promulgated a joint rule (the “Rule”) implementing the provisions of Section 165(d), 12 CFR parts 243 and 381.19 Certain Covered Companies meeting criteria set out in the Rule must file a resolution plan (“Plan”) annually or at a different time period specified by the Agencies.

    18 Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in the Rule.

    19 76 Fed. Reg. 67323 (November 1, 2011)

    Overview of Guidance Document: This document is intended to assist the eight current U.S. Global Systemically Important Banks (“GSIBs” or “firms”) 20 in further developing their preferred resolution strategies. The document describes the expectations of the Agencies regarding these firms' resolution plans, and highlights specific areas where additional detail should be provided and where certain capabilities or optionality should be developed and maintained to demonstrate that each firm has considered fully, and is able to mitigate, obstacles to the successful implementation of the preferred strategy.21

    20 Bank of America Corporation, the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation and Wells Fargo & Company.

    21 The 2013 Guidance, the 2014 Letter, and the 2015 Communication, as described in the 2016 letters to the firms, continue to be applicable (relevant dates should be updated appropriately), except to the extent superseded or supplemented by the provisions of this document. See Letters dated April 12, 2016, from the Board and FDIC to Bank of America Corporation, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, and Wells Fargo & Company, available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm.

    This document is organized around a number of key vulnerabilities in resolution (i.e., capital; liquidity; governance mechanisms; operational; legal entity rationalization and separability; and derivatives and trading activities) that apply across resolution plans. Additional vulnerabilities or obstacles may arise based on a firm's particular structure, operations, or resolution strategy. Each firm is expected to satisfactorily address these vulnerabilities in its Plan—e.g., by developing sensitivity analysis for certain underlying assumptions, enhancing capabilities, providing detailed analysis, or increasing optionality development, as indicated below.

    The Agencies will review the Plan to determine if it satisfactorily addresses key potential vulnerabilities, including those detailed below. If the Agencies jointly decide that these matters are not satisfactorily addressed in the Plan, the Agencies may determine jointly that the Plan is not credible or would not facilitate an orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

    II. CAPITAL

    Resolution Capital Adequacy and Positioning (RCAP): To help ensure that a firm's material entities 22 could operate while the parent company is in bankruptcy, the firm should have an adequate amount of loss-absorbing capacity to recapitalize those material entities. Thus, a firm should have outstanding a minimum amount of total loss-absorbing capital, as well as a minimum amount of long-term debt, to help ensure that the firm has adequate capacity to meet that need at a consolidated level (external TLAC).23

    22 The terms “material entities,” “critical operations,” and “core business lines” have the same meaning as in the Agencies' Rule.

    23 82 Fed. Reg. 8266 (January 24, 2017).

    A firm's external TLAC should be complemented by appropriate positioning of additional loss-absorbing capacity within the firm (internal TLAC). The positioning of a firm's internal TLAC should balance the certainty associated with pre-positioning internal TLAC directly at material entities with the flexibility provided by holding recapitalization resources at the parent (contributable resources) to meet unanticipated losses at material entities. That balance should take account of both pre-positioning at material entities and holding resources at the parent, and the obstacles associated with each. Accordingly, the firm should not rely exclusively on either full pre-positioning or parent contributable resources to recapitalize any material entity. The plan should describe the positioning of internal TLAC within the firm, along with analysis supporting such positioning.

    Finally, to the extent that pre-positioned internal TLAC at a material entity is in the form of intercompany debt and there are one or more entities between that material entity and the parent, the firm should mitigate uncertainty related to potential creditor challenge; for example, by ensuring that the seniority and tenor of the intercompany debt is the same between all entities in the chain.

    Resolution Capital Execution Need (RCEN): To support the execution of the firm's resolution strategy, material entities need to be recapitalized to a level that allows them to operate or be wound down in an orderly manner following the parent company's bankruptcy filing. The firm should have a methodology for periodically estimating the amount of capital that may be needed to support each material entity after the bankruptcy filing (RCEN). The firm's positioning of internal TLAC should be able to support the RCEN estimates. In addition, the RCEN estimates should be incorporated into the firm's governance framework to ensure that the parent company files for bankruptcy at a time that enables execution of the preferred strategy.

    The firm's RCEN methodology should use conservative forecasts for losses and risk-weighted assets and incorporate estimates of potential additional capital needs through the resolution period,24 consistent with the firm's resolution strategy. However, the methodology is not required to produce aggregate losses that are greater than the amount of external TLAC that would be required for the firm under the Board's rule.25 The RCEN methodology should be calibrated such that recapitalized material entities have sufficient capital to maintain market confidence as required under the preferred resolution strategy. Capital levels should meet or exceed all applicable regulatory capital requirements for “well-capitalized” status and meet estimated additional capital needs throughout resolution. Material entities that are not subject to capital requirements may be considered sufficiently recapitalized when they have achieved capital levels typically required to obtain an investment-grade credit rating or, if the entity is not rated, an equivalent level of financial soundness. Finally, the methodology should be independently reviewed, consistent with the firm's corporate governance processes and controls for the use of models and methodologies.

    24 The resolution period begins immediately after the parent company bankruptcy filing and extends through the completion of the preferred resolution strategy.

    25See 12 CFR 252.60-.65; 82 Fed. Reg. 8266 (January 24, 2017).

    III. LIQUIDITY

    The firm should have the liquidity capabilities necessary to execute its preferred resolution strategy, including those described in SR Letter 14-1.26 For resolution purposes, these capabilities should include having an appropriate model and process for estimating and maintaining sufficient liquidity at or readily available to material entities and a methodology for estimating the liquidity needed to successfully execute the resolution strategy, as described below.

    26 SR Letter 14-1, “Heightened Supervisory Expectations for Recovery and Resolution Preparedness for Certain Large Bank Holding Companies—Supplemental Guidance on Consolidated Supervision Framework for Large Financial Institutions” (Jan. 24, 2014), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/srletters/sr1401.pdf.

    Resolution Liquidity Adequacy and Positioning (RLAP): With respect to RLAP, the firm should be able to measure the stand-alone liquidity position of each material entity (including material entities that are non-U.S. branches)—i.e., the high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) at the material entity less net outflows to third parties and affiliates—and ensure that liquidity is readily available to meet any deficits. The RLAP model should cover a period of at least 30 days and reflect the idiosyncratic liquidity profile and risk of the firm. The model should balance the reduction in frictions associated with holding liquidity directly at material entities with the flexibility provided by holding HQLA at the parent available to meet unanticipated outflows at material entities. Thus, the firm should not rely exclusively on either full pre-positioning or the parent. The model 27 should ensure that the parent holding company holds sufficient HQLA (inclusive of its deposits at the U.S. branch of the lead bank subsidiary) to cover the sum of all stand-alone material entity net liquidity deficits. The stand-alone net liquidity position of each material entity (HQLA less net outflows) should be measured using the firm's internal liquidity stress test assumptions and should treat inter-affiliate exposures in the same manner as third-party exposures. For example, an overnight unsecured exposure to an affiliate should be assumed to mature. Finally, the firm should not assume that a net liquidity surplus at one material entity could be moved to meet net liquidity deficits at other material entities or to augment parent resources.

    27 “Model” refers to the set of calculations estimating the net liquidity surplus/deficit at each legal entity and for the firm in aggregate based on assumptions regarding available liquidity, e.g., HQLA, and third-party and interaffiliate net outflows.

    Additionally, the RLAP methodology should take into account (A) the daily contractual mismatches between inflows and outflows; (B) the daily flows from movement of cash and collateral for all inter-affiliate transactions; and (C) the daily stressed liquidity flows and trapped liquidity as a result of actions taken by clients, counterparties, key financial market utilities (FMUs), and foreign supervisors, among others.

    Resolution Liquidity Execution Need (RLEN): The firm should have a methodology for estimating the liquidity needed after the parent's bankruptcy filing to stabilize the surviving material entities and to allow those entities to operate post-filing. The RLEN estimate should be incorporated into the firm's governance framework to ensure that the firm files for bankruptcy in a timely way, i.e., prior to the firm's HQLA falling below the RLEN estimate.

    The firm's RLEN methodology should:

    (A) Estimate the minimum operating liquidity (MOL) needed at each material entity to ensure those entities could continue to operate post-parent's bankruptcy filing and/or to support a wind-down strategy;

    (B) Provide daily cash flow forecasts by material entity to support estimation of peak funding needs to stabilize each entity under resolution;

    (C) Provide a comprehensive breakout of all inter-affiliate transactions and arrangements that could impact the MOL or peak funding needs estimates; and

    (D) Estimate the minimum amount of liquidity required at each material entity to meet the MOL and peak needs noted above, which would inform the firm's board(s) of directors of when they need to take resolution-related actions.

    The MOL estimates should capture material entities' intraday liquidity requirements, operating expenses, working capital needs, and inter-affiliate funding frictions to ensure that material entities could operate without disruption during the resolution.

    The peak funding needs estimates should be projected for each material entity and cover the length of time the firm expects it would take to stabilize that material entity. Inter-affiliate funding frictions should be taken into account in the estimation process.

    The firm's forecasts of MOL and peak funding needs should ensure that material entities could operate post-filing consistent with regulatory requirements, market expectations, and the firm's post-failure strategy. These forecasts should inform the RLEN estimate, i.e., the minimum amount of HQLA required to facilitate the execution of the firm's strategy. The RLEN estimate should be tied to the firm's governance mechanisms and be incorporated into the playbooks as discussed below to assist the board of directors in taking timely resolution-related actions.

    IV. GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS

    Playbooks and Triggers: A firm should identify the governance mechanisms that would ensure execution of required board actions at the appropriate time (as anticipated under the firm's preferred strategy) and include pre-action triggers and existing agreements for such actions. Governance playbooks should detail the board and senior management actions necessary to facilitate the firm's preferred strategy and to mitigate vulnerabilities, and should incorporate the triggers identified below. The governance playbooks should also include a discussion of (A) the firm's proposed communications strategy, both internal and external; (B) the boards of directors' fiduciary responsibilities and how planned actions would be consistent with such responsibilities applicable at the time actions are expected to be taken; (C) potential conflicts of interest, including interlocking boards of directors; and (D) any employee retention policy. All responsible parties and timeframes for action should be identified. Governance playbooks should be updated periodically for all entities whose boards of directors would need to act in advance of the commencement of resolution proceedings under the firm's preferred strategy.

    The firm should demonstrate that key actions will be taken at the appropriate time in order to mitigate financial, operational, legal, and regulatory vulnerabilities. To ensure that these actions will occur, the firm should establish clearly identified triggers linked to specific actions for:

    (A) The escalation of information to senior management and the board(s) to potentially take the corresponding actions at each stage of distress post-recovery leading eventually to the decision to file for bankruptcy;

    (B) Successful recapitalization of subsidiaries prior to the parent's filing for bankruptcy and funding of such entities during the parent company's bankruptcy to the extent the preferred strategy relies on such actions or support; and

    (C) The timely execution of a bankruptcy filing and related pre-filing actions.28

    28 Key pre-filing actions include the preparation of any emergency motion required to be decided on the first day of the firm's bankruptcy. See “OPERATIONAL—Legal Obstacles Associated with Emergency Motions,” below.

    These triggers should be based, at a minimum, on capital, liquidity, and market metrics, and should incorporate the firm's methodologies for forecasting the liquidity and capital needed to operate as required by the preferred strategy following a parent company's bankruptcy filing. Additionally, the triggers and related actions should be specific.

    Triggers linked to firm actions as contemplated by the firm's preferred strategy should identify when and under what conditions the firm, including the parent company and its material entities, would transition from business-as-usual conditions to a stress period and from a stress period to the runway and recapitalization/resolution periods. Corresponding escalation procedures, actions, and timeframes should be constructed so that breach of the triggers will allow prerequisite actions to be completed. For example, breach of the triggers needs to occur early enough to ensure that resources are available and can be downstreamed, if anticipated by the firm's strategy, and with adequate time for the preparation of the bankruptcy petition and first-day motions, necessary stakeholder communications, and requisite board actions. Triggers identifying the onset of the runway and recapitalization/resolution periods, and the associated escalation procedures and actions, should be discussed directly in the governance playbooks.

    Pre-Bankruptcy Parent Support: The resolution plan should include a detailed legal analysis of the potential state law and bankruptcy law challenges and mitigants to planned provision of capital and liquidity to the subsidiaries prior to the parent's bankruptcy filing (Support). Specifically, the analysis should identify potential legal obstacles and explain how the firm would seek to ensure that Support would be provided as planned. Legal obstacles include claims of fraudulent transfer, preference, breach of fiduciary duty, and any other applicable legal theory identified by the firm. The analysis also should include related claims that may prevent or delay an effective recapitalization, such as equitable claims to enjoin the transfer (e.g., imposition of a constructive trust by the court). The analysis should apply the actions contemplated in the plan regarding each element of the claim, the anticipated timing for commencement and resolution of the claims, and the extent to which adjudication of such claim could affect execution of the firm's preferred resolution strategy.

    As noted, the analysis should include mitigants to the potential challenges to the planned Support. The plan should include the mitigant(s) to such challenges that the firm considers most effective. In identifying appropriate mitigants, the firm should consider the effectiveness of a contractually binding mechanism (CBM), pre-positioning of financial resources in material entities, and the creation of an intermediate holding company. Moreover, if the plan includes a CBM, the firm should consider whether it is appropriate that the CBM should have the following: (A) clearly defined triggers; (B) triggers that are synchronized to the firm's liquidity and capital methodologies; (C) perfected security interests in specified collateral sufficient to fully secure all Support obligations on a continuous basis (including mechanisms for adjusting the amount of collateral as the value of obligations under the agreement or collateral assets fluctuates); and (D) liquidated damages provisions or other features designed to make the CBM more enforceable. The firm also should consider related actions or agreements that may enhance the effectiveness of a CBM. A copy of any agreement and documents referenced therein (e.g., evidence of security interest perfection) should be included in the resolution plan.

    The governance playbooks included in the resolution plan should incorporate any developments from the firm's analysis of potential legal challenges regarding the Support, including any Support approach(es) the firm has implemented. If the firm analyzed and addressed an issue noted in this section in a prior plan submission, the plan may reproduce that analysis and arguments and should build upon it to at least the extent described above. In preparing the analysis of these issues, firms may consult with law firms and other experts on these matters. The Agencies do not object to appropriate collaboration between firms, including through trade organizations and with the academic community, to develop analysis of common legal challenges and available mitigants.

    V. OPERATIONAL Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Activities

    Framework. Maintaining continuity of payment, clearing, and settlement (PCS) services is critical for the orderly resolution of firms that are either users or providers,29 or both, of PCS services. A firm should demonstrate capabilities 30 for continued access to PCS services essential to an orderly resolution through a framework to support such access by:

    29 A firm is a user of PCS services if it uses the services of a financial market utility (FMU) through its membership in that FMU or an agent bank. A firm is a provider of PCS services if it provides its clients with access to an FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership to or relationship with that service provider (including providing PCS services to its client as an agent bank) or if it provides key clients with critical PCS services (e.g., the suspension or termination of such services would impact the key client's continued access to PCS services) through the firm's own operations.

    30 These capabilities may include those described in SR Letter 14-1.

    • Identifying key clients,31 FMUs, and agent banks, using both quantitative (volume and value) 32 and qualitative criteria;

    31 For purposes of this section V, a client is an individual or entity, including affiliates of the firm, that relies upon continued access to the firm's PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered in connection with those services.

    32 Examples of quantitative criteria include not only the aggregate volumes and values of all transactions processed through an FMU but also assets under custody with an agent bank, the value of cash and securities settled through an agent bank, and extensions of intraday credit.

    • Mapping material entities, critical operations, core business lines, and key clients to both key FMUs and agent banks; and

    • Developing a playbook for each key FMU and agent bank reflecting the firm's role(s) as a user and/or provider of PCS services.

    The framework should address both direct relationships (e.g., firm's direct membership in the FMU, firm provides key clients with critical PCS services through its own operations, firm's contractual relationship with an agent bank) and indirect relationships (e.g., firm provides its clients with access to the relevant FMU or agent bank through the firm's membership to or relationship with that FMU or agent bank).

    Playbooks for Continued Access to PCS Services. The firm is expected to provide a playbook for each key FMU and agent bank that addresses considerations that would assist the firm and its clients in maintaining continued access to PCS services in the period leading up to and including the firm's resolution. While the firm is not expected to incorporate a scenario in which it loses FMU or agent bank access into its preferred resolution strategy or its RLEN/RCEN estimates, each playbook should provide analysis of the financial and operational impact to the firm's material entities and key clients due to loss of access to the FMU or agent bank. Each playbook also should discuss any possible alternative arrangements that would allow the firm and its key clients continued access to PCS services in resolution. The firm should continue to engage with key FMUs, agent banks and clients, and playbooks should reflect any feedback received during such ongoing outreach.

    Content Related to Users of PCS Services. Individual FMU and agent bank playbooks should include at a minimum:

    • Description of the firm's relationship as a user with the key FMU or agent bank and the identification and mapping of PCS services to material entities, critical operations, and core business lines that use those PCS services;

    • Discussion of the potential range of adverse actions that may be taken by that key FMU or agent bank when the firm is in resolution,33 the operational and financial impact of such actions on each material entity, and contingency arrangements that may be initiated by the firm in response to potential adverse actions by the key FMU or key agent bank; and

    33 Potential adverse actions may include increased collateral and margin requirements and enhanced reporting and monitoring.

    • Discussion of PCS-related liquidity sources and uses in business-as-usual (BAU), in stress, and in the resolution period, presented by currency type (with U.S. dollar equivalent) and by material entity.

    ○ PCS Liquidity Sources: These may include the amounts of intraday extensions of credit, liquidity buffer, inflows from FMU participants, and client prefunded amounts in BAU, in stress, and in the resolution period. The playbook should also describe intraday credit arrangements (e.g., facilities of the FMU, agent bank, or a central bank) and any similar custodial arrangements that allow ready access to a firm's funds for PCS-related FMU and agent bank obligations (including margin requirements) in various currencies, including placements of firm liquidity at central banks, FMUs, and agent banks.

    ○ PCS Liquidity Uses: These may include firm and client margin, pre-funding and intraday extensions of credit, including incremental amounts required during resolution.

    ○ Intraday Liquidity Inflows and Outflows: The playbook should describe the firm's ability to control intraday liquidity inflows and outflows and to identify and prioritize time-specific payments. The playbook should also describe any account features that might restrict the firm's ready access to its liquidity sources.

    Content Related to Providers of PCS Services. Individual FMU and agent bank playbooks 34 should include at a minimum:

    34 Where a firm is a provider of PCS services through the firm's own operations, the firm is expected to produce a playbook for the material entity that provides those services, including contingency arrangements to permit the firm's key clients to maintain continued access to PCS services.

    • Identification and mapping of PCS services to the material entities, critical operations, and core business lines that provide those PCS services, and a description of the scale and the way in which each provides PCS services;

    • Identification and mapping of PCS services to key clients that rely upon the firm to provide those PCS services and any related credit or liquidity offered in connection with such services;

    • Discussion of the potential range of firm contingency arrangements available to minimize disruption to the provision of PCS services to its clients, including the viability of transferring client activity and any related assets, as well as any alternative arrangements that would allow the firm's key clients continued access to critical PCS services if the firm could no longer provide such access (e.g., due to the firm's loss of FMU or agent bank access), and the financial and operational impacts of such arrangements;

    • Description of the range of contingency actions that the firm may take concerning its provision of intraday credit to clients, including analysis quantifying the potential liquidity the firm could generate by taking such actions in stress and in the resolution period, such as (i) requiring clients to designate or appropriately pre-position liquidity, including through pre-funding of settlement activity, for PCS-related FMU and agent bank obligations at specific material entities of the firm (e.g., direct members of FMUs) or any similar custodial arrangements that allow ready access to clients' funds for such obligations in various currencies; (ii) delaying or restricting client PCS activity; and (iii) restricting, imposing conditions upon (e.g., requiring collateral), or eliminating the provision of intraday credit or liquidity to clients; and

    • Description of how the firm will communicate to its key clients the potential impacts of implementation of any identified contingency arrangements or alternatives, including a description of the firm's methodology for determining whether any additional communication should be provided to some or all key clients (e.g., due to the client's BAU usage of that access and/or related intraday credit or liquidity), and the expected timing and form of such communication.

    Managing, Identifying, and Valuing Collateral: The firm should have the capabilities described in SR Letter 14-1 related to managing, identifying, and valuing the collateral that it receives from and posts to external parties and its affiliates. Specifically, the firm should:

    • Be able to query and provide aggregate statistics for all qualified financial contracts concerning cross-default clauses, downgrade triggers, and other key collateral-related contract terms — not just those terms that may be impacted in an adverse economic environment — across contract types, business lines, legal entities, and jurisdictions;

    • Be able to track both firm collateral sources (i.e., counterparties that have pledged collateral) and uses (i.e., counterparties to whom collateral has been pledged) at the CUSIP level on at least a t+1 basis;

    • Have robust risk measurements for cross-entity and cross-contract netting, including consideration of where collateral is held and pledged;

    • Be able to identify CUSIP and asset class level information on collateral pledged to specific central counterparties by legal entity on at least a t+1 basis;

    • Be able to track and report on inter-branch collateral pledged and received on at least a t+1 basis and have clear policies explaining the rationale for such inter-branch pledges, including any regulatory considerations; and

    • Have a comprehensive collateral management policy that outlines how the firm as a whole approaches collateral and serves as a single source for governance.35

    35 The policy may reference subsidiary or related policies already in place, as implementation may differ based on business line or other factors.

    Management Information Systems: The firm should have the management information systems (MIS) capabilities to readily produce data on a legal entity basis and have controls to ensure data integrity and reliability, as described in SR Letter 14-1. The firm also should perform a detailed analysis of the specific types of financial and risk data that would be required to execute the preferred resolution strategy and how frequently the firm would need to produce the information, with the appropriate level of granularity.

    Shared and Outsourced Services: The firm should maintain a fully actionable implementation plan to ensure the continuity of shared services that support critical operations and robust arrangements to support the continuity of shared and outsourced services. The firm should (A) maintain an identification of all shared services that support critical operations (critical services); (B) maintain a mapping of how/where these services support its core business lines and critical operations; (C) incorporate such mapping into legal entity rationalization criteria and implementation efforts; and (D) mitigate identified continuity risks through establishment of service-level agreements (SLAs) for all critical shared services. These SLAs should fully describe the services provided, reflect pricing considerations on an arm's-length basis where appropriate, and incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to (A) prevent automatic termination upon certain resolution-related events and (B) achieve continued provision of such services during resolution. The firm should also store SLAs in a central repository or repositories in a searchable format, develop and document contingency strategies and arrangements for replacement of critical shared services, and complete re-alignment or restructuring of activities within its corporate structure. In addition, the firm should ensure the financial resilience of internal shared service providers by maintaining working capital for six months (or through the period of stabilization as required in the firm's preferred strategy) in such entities sufficient to cover contract costs, consistent with the preferred resolution strategy.

    The firm should identify all critical outsourced services that support critical operations and could not be promptly substituted. The firm should (A) evaluate the agreements governing these services to determine whether there are any that could be terminated despite continued performance upon the parent's bankruptcy filing, and (B) update contracts to incorporate appropriate terms and conditions to prevent automatic termination and facilitate continued provision of such services during resolution. Relying on entities projected to survive during resolution to avoid contract termination is insufficient to ensure continuity. In the plan, the firm should document the amendment of any such agreements governing these services.

    Legal Obstacles Associated with Emergency Motions: The Plan should address legal issues associated with the implementation of the stay on cross-default rights described in Section 2 of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol (Protocol), similar provisions of any U.S. protocol,36 or other contractual provisions that comply with the Agencies' rules regarding stays from the exercise of cross-default rights in qualified financial contracts, to the extent relevant.37 Generally, the Protocol provides two primary methods of satisfying the stay conditions for covered agreements for which the affiliate in Chapter 11 proceedings has provided a credit enhancement (A) transferring all such credit enhancements to a Bankruptcy Bridge Company (as defined in the Protocol) (bridge transfer); or (B) having such affiliate remain obligated with respect to such credit enhancements in the Chapter 11 proceeding (elevation).38 A firm must file a motion for emergency relief (emergency motion) seeking approval of an order to effect either of these alternatives on the first day of its bankruptcy case.

    36 U.S. protocol has the same meaning as it does at 12 CFR 252.85(a). See also 12 CFR 382.5(a) (including a substantively identical definition).

    37 See 12 CFR part 47, 252.81-.88, and part 382 (together, the “QFC stay rules”). If the firm complies with the QFC stay rules other than through adherence to the Protocol, the plan also should explain how the alternative compliance method differs from Protocol, how those differences affect the analysis and other expectations of this “Legal Obstacles Associated with Emergency Motions” section, and how the firm plans to satisfy any different conditions or requirements of the alternative compliance method.

    38 Under its terms, the Protocol also provides for the transfer of credit enhancements to transferees other than a Bankruptcy Bridge Company.

    First-day Issues—For each alternative the firm selects, the resolution plan should present the firm's analysis of issues that are likely to be raised at the hearing on the emergency motion and its best arguments in support of the emergency motion. A firm should include supporting legal precedent and describe the evidentiary support that the firm would anticipate presenting to the bankruptcy court — e.g., declarations or other expert testimony evidencing the solvency of transferred subsidiaries and that recapitalized entities have sufficient liquidity to perform their ongoing obligations.

    For either alternative, the firm should address all potential significant legal obstacles identified by the firm. For example, the firm should address due process arguments likely to be made by creditors asserting that they have not had sufficient opportunity to respond to the emergency motion given the likelihood that a creditors' committee will not yet have been appointed. The firm also should consider, and discuss in its plan, whether it would enhance the successful implementation of its preferred strategy to conduct outreach to interested parties, such as potential creditors of the holding company and the bankruptcy bar, regarding the strategy.

    If the firm chooses the bridge transfer alternative, its analysis and arguments should address at a minimum the following potential issues: (A) the legal basis for transferring the parent holding company's equity interests in certain subsidiaries (transferred subsidiaries) to a Bankruptcy Bridge Company, including the basis upon which the Bankruptcy Bridge Company would remain obligated for credit enhancements; (B) the ability of the bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction, issue injunctions, or take other actions to prevent third parties from interfering with, or making collateral attacks on (i) a Bankruptcy Bridge Company, (ii) its transferred subsidiaries, or (iii) a trust or other legal entity designed to hold all ownership interests in a Bankruptcy Bridge Company (new ownership entity); and (C) the role of the bankruptcy court in granting the emergency motion due to public policy concerns—e.g., to preserve financial stability. The firm should also provide a draft agreement (e.g., trust agreement) detailing the preferred post-transfer governance relationships between the bankruptcy estate, the new ownership entity, and the Bankruptcy Bridge Company, including the proposed role and powers of the bankruptcy court and creditors' committee. Alternative approaches to these proposed post-transfer governance relationships should also be described, particularly given the strong interest that parties will have in the ongoing operations of the Bankruptcy Bridge Company and the likely absence of an appointed creditors' committee at the time of the hearing.

    If the firm chooses the elevation alternative, the analysis and arguments should address at a minimum the following potential issues: (A) The legal basis upon which the parent company would seek to remain obligated for credit enhancements; (B) the ability of the bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction, issue injunctions, or take other actions to prevent third parties from interfering with, or making collateral attacks on, the parent in bankruptcy or its subsidiaries; and (C) the role of the bankruptcy court in granting the emergency motion due to public policy concerns—e.g., to preserve financial stability.

    Regulatory Implications—The plan should include a detailed explanation of the steps the firm would take to ensure that key domestic and foreign authorities would support, or not object to, the emergency motion (including specifying the expected approvals or forbearances and the requisite format—i.e., formal, affirmative statements of support or, alternatively, “non-objections”). The potential impact on the firm's preferred resolution strategy if a specific approval or forbearance cannot be timely obtained should also be detailed.

    Contingencies if Preferred Structure Fails—The plan should consider contingency arrangements in the event the bankruptcy court does not grant the emergency motion—e.g., whether alternative relief could satisfy the Transfer Conditions and/or U.S. Parent debtor-in-possession (DIP) Conditions of the Protocol; 39 the extent to which action upon certain aspects of the emergency motion may be deferred by the bankruptcy court without interfering with the resolution; and whether, if the credit-enhancement-related protections are not satisfied, there are alternative strategies to prevent the closeout of qualified financial contracts with credit enhancements (or reduce such counterparties' incentives to closeout) and the feasibility of the alternative(s).

    39See Protocol sections 2(b)(ii) and (iii) and related definitions.

    Format—If the firm analyzed and addressed an issue noted in this section in a prior plan submission, the plan may incorporate this analysis and arguments and should build upon it to at least the extent required above. A bankruptcy playbook, which includes a sample emergency motion and draft documents setting forth the post-transfer governance terms substantially in the form they would be presented to the bankruptcy court, is an appropriate vehicle for detailing the issues outlined in this section. In preparing analysis of these issues, the firm may consult with law firms and other experts on these matters. The Agencies do not object to appropriate collaboration among firms, including through trade organizations and with the academic community and bankruptcy bar, to develop analysis of common legal challenges and available mitigants.

    VI. LEGAL ENTITY RATIONALIZATION AND SEPARABILITY

    Legal Entity Rationalization Criteria (LER Criteria): A firm should develop and implement legal entity rationalization criteria that support the firm's preferred resolution strategy and minimize risk to U.S. financial stability in the event of the firm's failure. LER Criteria should consider the best alignment of legal entities and business lines to improve the firm's resolvability under different market conditions. LER Criteria should govern the firm's corporate structure and arrangements between legal entities in a way that facilitates the firm's resolvability as its activities, technology, business models, or geographic footprint change over time.

    Specifically, application of the criteria should:

    (A) Facilitate the recapitalization and liquidity support of material entities, as required by the firm's resolution strategy. Such criteria should include clean lines of ownership, minimal use of multiple intermediate holding companies, and clean funding pathways between the parent and material operating entities;

    (B) Facilitate the sale, transfer, or wind-down of certain discrete operations within a timeframe that would meaningfully increase the likelihood of an orderly resolution of the firm, including provisions for the continuity of associated services and mitigation of financial, operational, and legal challenges to separation and disposition;

    (C) Adequately protect the subsidiary insured depository institutions from risks arising from the activities of any nonbank subsidiaries of the firm (other than those that are subsidiaries of an insured depository institution); and

    (D) Minimize complexity that could impede an orderly resolution and minimize redundant and dormant entities.

    These criteria should be built into the firm's ongoing process for creating, maintaining, and optimizing its structure and operations on a continuous basis.

    Separability: The firm should identify discrete operations that could be sold or transferred in resolution, which individually or in the aggregate would provide meaningful optionality in resolution under different market conditions. The actionability of those options should be supported by the firm's criteria and analysis required by SR Letter 14-8.40 Additionally, this analysis should facilitate buyer due diligence and include carve-out financial statements, valuation analysis, and a legal risk assessment. Further, the firm should establish a data room to collect and refresh annually the analyses above, as well as other information pertinent to a potential divestiture of the business.

    40 SR Letter 14-8, “Consolidated Recovery Planning for Certain Large Domestic Bank Holding Companies” (Sept. 25, 2014), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/srletters/sr1408.pdf.

    Within the plan, the firm should demonstrate how the firm's LER Criteria and implementation efforts meet the guidance above. The plan should also provide the separability analysis noted above. Finally, the plan should include a description of the firm's legal entity rationalization governance process.

    VII. DERIVATIVES AND TRADING ACTIVITIES Applicability.

    This section of the proposed guidance applies to Bank of America Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo & Company (each, a “dealer firm”).

    Booking Practices.

    A dealer firm should have booking practices commensurate with the size, scope, and complexity of a firm's derivatives portfolios,41 including systems capabilities to track and monitor market, credit, and liquidity risk transfers between entities. The following booking practices-related capabilities should be addressed in a dealer firm's resolution plan:

    41 A firm's derivatives portfolios include its derivatives positions and linked non-derivatives trading positions.

    Derivatives booking framework. A dealer firm should have a comprehensive booking model framework that articulates the principles, rationales, and approach to implementing its firm-wide booking practices. The framework and its underlying components should be documented and adequately supported by internal controls (e.g., procedures, systems, and processes). Taken together, the derivatives booking framework and its components should provide transparency with respect to (i) what is being booked (e.g., product/counterparty), (ii) where it is being booked (e.g., legal entity/geography), (iii) by whom it is booked (e.g., business/trading desk); (iv) why it is booked that way (e.g., drivers/rationales); and (v) what controls are in place to monitor and manage those practices (e.g., governance/information systems) 42 . The dealer firm's resolution plan should include detailed descriptions of the framework and each of its material components. In particular, a dealer firm's resolution plan should include descriptions of the documented booking models covering its firm-wide derivatives portfolio.43 The descriptions should provide clarity with respect to the underlying trade flows (e.g., the mapping of trade flows based on multiple trade characteristics as decision points that determine on which entity a trade is booked, if risk is transferred, and at which entity that risk is subsequently managed). For example, a firm may choose to incorporate decision trees that depict the multiple trade flows within each documented booking model.44 Furthermore, a dealer firm's resolution plan should describe its end-to-end trade booking and reporting processes, including a description of the current scope of automation (e.g., automated trade flows and detective monitoring) for the systems controls applied to its documented booking models. The plan should also discuss why the firm believes its current (or planned) scope of automation is sufficient for managing its derivatives activities and executing its preferred resolution strategy.45

    42 The description of controls should include any components of the firm-wide market, credit, and liquidity risk management framework that are material to the management of its derivatives practices.

    43 The firm should at least document booking models that, in the aggregate, represent the vast majority of the firm's derivatives transactions, e.g., booking models that represent no less than 95% of a dealer firm's derivatives transactions measured by firm-wide derivatives notional and by firm-wide gross market value of derivatives. Presumably, each asset class/product would have a booking model that is a function of the firm's regulatory and risk management requirements, client's preference, and regulatory requirements specifically for the underlying asset class, and other transaction related considerations.

    44 Some firms use trader mandates or similar controls to constrain the potential trading strategies that can be pursued by a business and to monitor the permissibility of booking activity. However, the mapping of trader mandates alone, especially those mandates that grant broad permissibility, may not provide sufficient distinction between booking model trade flows.

    45 Effective preventative (up-front) and detective (post-booking) controls embedded in a dealer firm's derivatives booking processes can help avoid and/or timely remediate trades that do not align with a documented booking model or related risk limits. Firms typically use a combination of manual and automated control functions. Although automation may not be best suited for all control functions, as compared to manual methods it can improve consistency and traceability with respect to derivatives booking practices. Nonetheless, non-automated methods can also be effective when supported by other internal controls (e.g., robust detective monitoring and escalation protocols).

    Derivatives entity analysis and reporting. A dealer firm should have the ability to identify, assess, and report on each of its entities (material and non-material) with derivatives portfolios (a “derivatives entity”). First, the firm's resolution plan should describe its method (that may include both qualitative and quantitative criteria) for evaluating the significance of each derivatives entity both with respect to the firm's current activities and to its preferred resolution strategy.46 Second, a dealer firm's resolution plan should demonstrate (including through illustrative samples) its ability to readily generate current derivatives entity profiles that (i) cover all derivatives entities, (ii) are reportable in a consistent manner, and (iii) include information regarding current legal ownership structure, business activities/volume, and risk profile (including applicable risk limits).

    46 The firm should leverage any existing methods and criteria it uses for other entity assessments (e.g., legal entity rationalization and/or the pre-positioning of internal loss-absorbing resources). The firm's method for determining the significance of derivatives entities is allowed to diverge from the parameters for material entity designation under the Resolution Plan Rule (i.e., entities significant to the activities of a critical operation or core business line) but should be adequately supported and any differences should be explained.

    Inter-Affiliate Risk Monitoring and Controls.

    A dealer firm should be able to assess how the management of inter-affiliate risks can be affected in resolution, including the potential disruption in the risk transfers of trades between affiliate entities. Therefore, a dealer firm should have capabilities to provide timely transparency into the management of risk transfers between affiliates by maintaining an inter-affiliate market risk framework, consisting of at least the following two components 47 :

    47 The inter-affiliate market risk framework is a supplement to the firm's systems capabilities to track and monitor market, credit, and liquidity risk transfers between entities.

    1. A method for measuring, monitoring, and reporting the market risk exposures for a given material derivatives entity resulting from the termination of a specific counterparty or a set of counterparties (e.g., all trades with a specific affiliate or with all affiliates in a specific jurisdiction) 48 ; and

    48 Firms may use industry market risk measures such as statistical risk measures (e.g., VaR or SVaR) or other risk measures (e.g., worst case scenario or stress test).

    2. A method for identifying, estimating associated costs of, and evaluating the effectiveness of, a re-hedge strategy in resolution put on by the same material derivatives entity.49

    49 A dealer firm's method may include an approach to identifying the risk factors and risk sensitivities, hedging instruments, and risk limits a derivatives entity would employ in its re-hedge strategy, and the quantification of any estimated basis risk that would result from hedging with only exchange-traded and centrally-cleared instruments in a severely adverse stress environment.

    In determining the re-hedge strategy, the firm should consider whether the instruments used (and the risk factors and risk sensitives controlled for) are sufficiently tied to the material derivatives entity's trading and risk-management practices to demonstrate its ability to execute the strategy in resolution using existing resources (e.g., existing traders and systems).

    A dealer firm's resolution plan should describe and demonstrate its inter-affiliate market risk framework (discussed above). In addition, the firm's plan should provide detailed descriptions of its compression strategies used for executing its preferred strategy and how those strategies would differ from those used currently to manage its inter-affiliate derivatives activities. The plan should also include detailed descriptions of the firm's compression capabilities, the associated risks, and obstacles in resolution.

    Portfolio Segmentation and Forecasting.

    A dealer firm should have the capabilities to produce analysis that reflects derivatives portfolio segmentation and differentiation of assumptions taking into account trade-level characteristics. More specifically, a dealer firm should have the systems capabilities that would allow it to produce a spectrum of derivatives portfolio segmentation analysis using multiple segmentation dimensions, including (1) legal entity (and material entities that are branches), (2) trading desk and/or product, (3) cleared vs. clearable vs. non-clearable trades, (4) counterparty type, (5) currency, (6) maturity, (7) level of collateralization, and (8) netting set.50 A dealer firm should also have the capabilities to segment and analyze the full contractual maturity (run-off) profile of its external and inter-affiliate derivatives portfolios. The dealer firm's resolution plan should describe and demonstrate the firm's ability to segment and analyze its firm-wide derivatives portfolio using the relevant segmentation dimensions and to report the results of such segmentation and analysis. In addition, the dealer firm's resolution plan should address the following segmentation and forecasting related capabilities:

    50 The enumerated segmentation dimensions represent a minimum set of characteristics for differentiation of derivatives portfolios but are not intended as an exhaustive list of relevant dimensions. With respect to any product/asset class, a firm may have reasons for not capturing data on (or not using) one or more of the enumerated segmentation dimensions, but those reasons should be explained.

    “Ease of exit” position analysis. A dealer firm should have, and its resolution plan should describe and demonstrate, a method and supporting systems capabilities for categorizing and ranking the ease of exit for its derivatives positions based on a set of well-defined and consistently applied segmentation criteria. These capabilities should cover the firm-wide derivatives portfolio and the resulting categories should represent a range in degree of difficulty (e.g., from easiest to most difficult to exit). The segmentation criteria should, at a minimum, reflect characteristics 51 that the firm believes could affect the level of financial incentive and operational effort required to facilitate the exit of derivatives portfolios (e.g., to motivate a potential step-in party to agree to the novation or an existing counterparty to bilaterally agree to a termination). Dealer firms should consider this methodology when separately identifying and analyzing the population of derivatives positions that it will include in the potential residual portfolio under the firm's preferred resolution strategy (discussed below).

    51 Examples of characteristics that may affect the level of financial incentive and operational effort could include: product, size, clearability, currency, maturity, level of collateralization, and other risk characteristics.

    Application of exit cost methodology. Each dealer firm should have a methodology for forecasting the cost and liquidity needed to exit positions (e.g., terminate/tear-up, sell, novate, and compress), and the operational resources related to those exits, under the specific scenario adopted in the firm's preferred resolution strategy. To help preserve sufficient optionality with respect to managing and de-risking its derivatives portfolios in a resolution, a dealer firm should have the systems capabilities to apply its exit cost methodology to its firm-wide derivatives portfolio, at the segmentation levels the firm would likely apply to exit the particular positions (e.g., valuation segment level). The dealer firm's plan should provide detailed descriptions of the forecasting methodology (inclusive of any challenge and validation processes) and data systems and reporting capabilities. The firm should also describe and demonstrate the application of the exit cost method and systems capabilities to the firm-wide derivatives portfolio.

    Analysis of operational capacity. In resolution, a dealer firm should have the capabilities to forecast the incremental operational needs and expenses related to executing specific aspects of its preferred resolution strategy (e.g., executing timely derivatives portfolio novations). Therefore, a dealer firm should have, and its resolution plan should describe and demonstrate, the capabilities to assess the operational resources and forecast the costs (e.g., monthly expense rate) related to its current derivatives activities at an appropriately granular level and the incremental impact from executing its preferred resolution strategy.52 In addition, a dealer firm should have the ability to manage the logistical and operational challenges related to novating (selling) derivatives portfolios during a resolution, including the design and adjustment of novation packages. A dealer firm's resolution plan should describe its methodology and demonstrate its supporting systems capabilities for timely segmenting, packaging, and novating derivatives positions. In developing its methodology, a dealer firm should consider the systems capabilities that may be needed to reliably generate preliminary novation packages tailored to the risk appetites of potential step-in counterparties (buyers), as well as the novation portfolio profile information that may be most relevant to such counterparties.

    52 At a minimum, a dealer firm should have separate categories for fixed and variable expenses. For example, more granular operational expenses could roll-up into categories for (i) fixed-compensation, (ii) fixed non-compensation, and (iii) variable cost.

    Sensitivity analysis. A dealer firm should have a method to apply sensitivity analyses to the key drivers of the derivatives-related costs and liquidity flows under its preferred resolution strategy. A dealer firm's resolution plan should describe its method for (i) evaluating the materiality of assumptions and (ii) identifying those assumptions (or combinations of assumptions) that constitute the key drivers for its forecasts of operational and financial resource needs under the preferred resolution strategy. In addition, using its preferred resolution strategy as a baseline, the dealer firm's resolution plan should describe and demonstrate its approach to testing the sensitivities of the identified key drivers and the potential impact on its forecasts of resource needs.53

    53 For example, key drivers of derivatives-related costs and liquidity flows might include the timing of derivatives unwind, cost of capital-related assumptions (target ROE, discount rate, WAL, capital constraints, tax rate), operational cost reduction rate, and operational capacity for novations. Other examples of key drivers likely also include CCP margin flow assumptions and risk-weighted assets forecast assumptions.

    Prime Brokerage Customer Account Transfers.

    A dealer firm should have the operational capacity to facilitate the orderly transfer of prime brokerage accounts to peer prime brokers in periods of material financial distress and in resolution. The firm's plan should include an assessment of how it would transfer such accounts. This assessment should be informed by clients' relationships with other prime brokers, the use of automated and manual transaction processes, clients' overall long and short positions facilitated by the firm, and the liquidity of clients' portfolios. The assessment should also analyze the risks of and mitigants to the loss of customer-to-customer internalization (e.g., the inability to fund customer longs with customer shorts), operational challenges, and insufficient staffing to effectuate the scale and speed of prime brokerage account transfers envisioned under the firm's preferred resolution strategy.

    In addition, a dealer firm should describe and demonstrate its ability to segment and analyze the quality and composition of prime brokerage customer account balances based on a set of well-defined and consistently applied segmentation criteria (e.g., size, single-prime, platform, use of leverage, non-rehypothecatable securities, and liquidity of underlying assets). The capabilities should cover the firm's prime brokerage customer account balances, and the resulting segments should represent a range in potential transfer speed (e.g., from fastest to longest to transfer, from most liquid to least liquid). The selected segmentation criteria should, at a minimum, reflect characteristics 54 that the firm believes could affect the speed at which the client account balance would be transferred to an alternate prime broker.

    54 For example, relevant characteristics might include: product, size, clearability, currency, maturity, level of collateralization, and other risk characteristics.

    Derivatives Stabilization and De-risking Strategy.

    A dealer firm's plan should provide a detailed analysis of the strategy to stabilize and de-risk its derivatives portfolios (“derivatives strategy”) that has been incorporated into its preferred resolution strategy.55 In developing its derivatives strategy, a dealer firm should apply the following assumption constraints:

    55 Subject to the relevant constraints, a firm's derivatives strategy may take the form of a going-concern strategy, an accelerated de-risking strategy (e.g., active wind-down) or an alternative, third strategy so long as the firm's resolution plan adequately supports the execution of the chosen strategy. For example, a firm may choose a going-concern scenario (e.g., derivatives entities reestablish investment grade status and do not enter a wind-down) as its derivatives strategy. Likewise, a firm may choose to adopt a combination of going-concern and accelerated de-risking scenarios as its derivatives strategy. For example, the derivatives strategy could be a stabilization scenario for the lead bank entity and an accelerated de-risking scenario for the broker-dealer entities.

    OTC derivatives market access: At or before the start of the resolution period, each derivatives entity should be assumed to lack an investment-grade credit rating (e.g., unrated or downgraded below investment grade). The derivatives entity should also be assumed to have failed to establish or reestablish investment-grade status for the duration of the resolution period, unless the plan provides well-supported analysis to the contrary. As a result of the lack of investment grade status, it should be further assumed that the derivatives entity has no access to the bilateral OTC derivatives markets and must use exchange-traded and/or centrally-cleared instruments where any new hedging needs arise during the resolution period. Nevertheless, a dealer firm may assume the ability to engage in certain risk-reducing derivatives trades with bilateral OTC derivatives counterparties during the resolution period to facilitate novations with third parties and to close out inter-affiliate trades.56

    56 A firm may engage in bilateral OTC derivatives trades with, for example, (i) external counterparties, to effect the novation of the firm's side of a derivatives contract to a new counterparty, bilateral OTC trades with the acquiring counterparty; and, (ii) inter-affiliate counterparties, where the trades with inter-affiliate counterparties (a) reduce the credit exposure of each participating counterparty and (b) do not materially increase the market risk of any such counterparty on a standalone basis, after taking into account hedging with exchange-traded and centrally-cleared instruments. The firm should demonstrate the risk-reducing nature of the trade on the basis of information that would be known to the firm at the time of the transaction.

    Early exits (break clauses). A dealer firm should assume that counterparties (external or affiliates) will exercise any contractual termination right, consistent with any rights stayed by the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay protocol or other applicable protocols or amendments 57 , (i) that is available to the counterparty at or following the start of the resolution period; and (ii) if exercising such right would economically benefit the counterparty (“counterparty-initiated termination”).

    57 For each of the derivatives entities that have adhered to the Protocol, the dealer firm may assume that the protocol is in effect for all counterparties of that derivatives entity (except for any affiliated counterparty of the derivatives entity that has not yet adhered to the Protocol).

    Time horizon: The duration of the resolution period should be between 12 and 24 months. The resolution period begins immediately after the parent company bankruptcy filing and extends through the completion of the preferred resolution strategy.

    A dealer firm's analysis of its derivatives strategy should, at a minimum, take into account (i) the starting profile of its derivatives portfolios (e.g., nature, concentration, maturity, clearability, and liquidity of positions); (ii) the profile and function of the derivatives entities during the resolution period; (iii) the means, challenges, and capacity for managing and de-risking its derivatives portfolios (e.g., method for timely segmenting, packaging, and selling the derivatives positions; challenges with novating less liquid positions; re-hedging strategy); (iv) the financial and operational resources required to effect the derivatives strategy; and (v) any potential residual portfolio (further discussed below). In addition, the firm's resolution plan should address the following areas in the analysis of its derivatives strategy:

    Forecasts of resource needs. The forecasts of capital and liquidity resource needs required to adequately support the firm's derivatives strategy should be incorporated into the firm's RCEN and RLEN estimates for its overall preferred resolution strategy. These include, for example, the costs and/or liquidity flows resulting from (i) the close-out of OTC derivatives, (ii) the hedging of derivatives portfolios, (iii) the quantified losses that could be incur due to basis and other risks that would result from hedging with only exchange-traded and centrally cleared instruments in a severely adverse stress environment, and (iv) the operational costs.

    Potential residual derivatives portfolio. A dealer firm's resolution plan should include a method for estimating the composition of any potential residual derivatives portfolio transactions remaining at the end of the resolution period under its preferred resolution strategy. The method may be a combination of approaches (e.g., probabilistic and deterministic) but should demonstrate the dealer firm's capabilities related to portfolio segmentation (discussed above). The dealer firm's plan should also provide detailed descriptions of the trade characteristics used to identify the potential residual portfolio and of the resulting trades (or categories of trades).58 A dealer firm should assess the risk profile of the potential residual portfolio (including its anticipated size, composition, complexity, counterparties) and the potential counterparty and market impacts of non-performance on the stability of U.S. financial markets (e.g., on funding markets and the underlying asset markets and on clients and counterparties).

    58 If under the firm's preferred resolution strategy, any derivatives portfolios are transferred during the resolution period by way of a line of business sale (or similar transaction), then those portfolios should nonetheless be included within the firm's potential residual portfolio analysis.

    Non-surviving entity analysis. To the extent the preferred resolution strategy assumes a material derivatives entity enters its own resolution proceeding after the entry of the parent company into a bankruptcy proceeding (a “non-surviving material derivatives entity”), the dealer firm should provide a detailed analysis of how the non-surviving material derivatives entity's resolution can be accomplished within a reasonable period of time and in a manner that substantially mitigates the risk of serious adverse effects on U.S. financial stability and to the orderly execution of the firm's preferred resolution strategy. In particular, the firm should provide an analysis of the potential impacts on funding markets and the underlying asset markets, on clients and counterparties (including affiliates), and on the preferred resolution strategy. If the non-surviving material derivatives entity is located in, or provides more than de minimis services to clients or counterparties located in, a non-U.S. jurisdiction, then the analysis should also specifically consider potential local market impacts.

    VIII. PUBLIC SECTION

    The purpose of the public section is to inform the public's understanding of the firm's resolution strategy and how it works.

    The public section should discuss the steps that the firm is taking to improve resolvability under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The public section should provide background information on each material entity and should be enhanced by including the firm's rationale for designating material entities. The public section should also discuss, at a high level, the firm's intra-group financial and operational interconnectedness (including the types of guarantees or support obligations in place that could impact the execution of the firm's strategy). There should also be a high-level discussion of the liquidity resources and loss-absorbing capacity of the firm.

    The discussion of strategy in the public section should broadly explain how the firm has addressed any deficiencies, shortcomings, and other key vulnerabilities that the Agencies have identified in prior Plan submissions. For each material entity, it should be clear how the strategy provides for continuity, transfer, or orderly wind-down of the entity and its operations. There should also be a description of the resulting organization upon completion of the resolution process.

    The public section may note that the resolution plan is not binding on a bankruptcy court or other resolution authority and that the proposed failure scenario and associated assumptions are hypothetical and do not necessarily reflect an event or events to which the firm is or may become subject.

    By the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 28, 2018. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC on June 28, 2018.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie Jean Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15066 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or [email protected]

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Tuesday, July 3, 2018. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose

    The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

    II. Agenda

    On Wednesday, July 18, 2018, the Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at www.webconferences.com/ahrq. The meeting will begin with an update on AHRQ's current research, programs, and initiatives. The agenda will also include updates on: AHRQ Data, Analytics, and Insights; Making Health Services Research Relevant to the C-Suite; and AHRQ's Opioids efforts. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ website at www.AHRQ.gov no later than Friday, July 13, 2018.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15105 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Database.”

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by September 14, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected] Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by emails at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed Project Renewal of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Database

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. The CAHPS Database is a repository for data from selected CAHPS surveys. The primary purpose of the CAHPS Database is to facilitate comparisons of CAHPS survey results by survey users. This voluntary compilation of survey results from a large pool of data into a single database enables survey users to compare their own results to relevant Database results. The CAHPS Database also offers an important source of primary data for research related to consumer assessments of quality as measured by CAHPS surveys.

    The CAHPS Clinician & Group Survey (CG-CAHPS) Database is the newest component of the CAHPS Database. It was developed in response to the growing demand for Database results for the various versions of the CG-CAHPS Survey, including the 12-month and Visit versions. In May 2011, the first set of Database results for both the 12-month and Visit versions was released through the CAHPS Database Online Reporting System.

    AHRQ developed the database for CAHPS CG Survey data following the CAHPS Health Plan Database as a model. The CAHPS Health Plan Database was developed in 1998 in response to requests from health plans, purchasers, and CMS for survey data to support public reporting of health plan ratings, health plan accreditation and quality improvement (OMB Control Number 0935-0165, expiration 5/31/2020). Demand for survey results from the CG Survey has grown as well, and therefore AHRQ developed a dedicated Clinician and Group Database to support benchmarking, quality improvement, and research (OMB Control Number 0935-0197, expiration 02/28/2019).

    The CAHPS Database contains data from AHRQ's standardized CAHPS Surveys which provide survey measures of quality to health care purchasers, consumers, regulators, and policy makers. The Health Plan Database also provides data for AHRQ's annual National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports.

    The goal of this project is to renew the CAHPS CG Survey Database. This database will continue to update the CAHPS CG Database with the latest results of the CAHPS CG Survey. These results consist of 31 items that measure 5 areas or composites of patients' experiences with physicians and staff in outpatient medical practices. This database can be used to do the following:

    (1) Improve care provided by individual providers, sites of care, medical groups, or provider networks.

    (2) Offer several products and services, including providing survey results presented through an Online Reporting System, summary chartbooks, custom analyses, private reports in Excel format, and data for research purposes.

    (3) Provides information to help identify strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient care. The five composite measures are:

    Getting Timely Appointments, Care, and Information How Well Providers Communicate With Patients Helpful, Courteous, and Respectful Office Staff Providers' Use of Information to Coordinate Patient Care Patients' Rating of the Provider

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement, and health surveys and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goal of this project, the following activities and data collections will be implemented:

    (1) Registration Form—The purpose of this form is to determine the eligibility status and initiate the registration process for participating organizations seeking to submit their CAHPS CG survey data voluntarily to the CAHPS CG Survey Database. The point of contact (POC) at the participating organization (or parent organization) will complete the form. The POC is either a corporate-level health manager or a survey vendor who contracts with a participating organization to collect the CAHPS CG survey data.

    (2) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the Data Use Agreement (DUA) is to obtain authorization from participating organizations to use their voluntarily submitted CAHPS CG survey data for analysis and reporting according to the terms specified in the DUA. The DUA states how data submitted by participating organizations will be used and provides confidentiality assurances. The POC at the organization will complete the form. Vendors do not sign the DUA.

    (3) Data Submission—The number of submissions to the database may vary each year because medical groups and practices may not administer the survey and submit data each year. Data submission is typically handled by one POC who is either a health system, a medical group or practice or a survey vendor who contracts with the medical group or practice to collect data on their behalf. After the POC has completed the Registration Form and the DUA, they will submit patient-level data collected from the CAHPS CG survey to the CAHPS CG Survey Database. Data on organizational characteristics such as ownership, number of patient visits per week, provider specialty, and information related to survey administration such as mode, dates of survey administration, sample size, and response rate, which are collected as part of CAHPS CG survey operations are also submitted.

    Each submission will consist of 3 data files: (1) A Group File that contains information about the group ownership, (2) a Practice File containing the practice ownership and affiliation (i.e., commercial, hospital or health system, university or academic medical center, community health center, military or county), number of providers working each week, sampling information, number of patient visits per week, contact information and (3) a Sample File that contains one record for each patient surveyed, the date of visit, survey disposition code, information about survey completion, and survey responses.

    Survey data from the CAHPS CG Database is used to produce four types of products: (1) An online reporting of results available to the public on the CAHPS Database website; (2) individual participant reports (in Excel format), used for comparing a participating organization's CAHPS survey results to the database averages, that are confidential and customized for each participating organization that submits their data, (3) an annual Chartbook that presents summary-level results in a downloadable file in PDF format; and (4) a de-identified dataset that is made available to researchers for additional analyses.

    Information for the CAHPS CG Database has been collected by AHRQ on an annual basis since 2010. Participating organizations are asked to submit their data voluntarily to the database each year. The data are cleaned with standardized programs, then aggregated and used to produce summarized results. In addition, reports in Excel format are produced that compare the participating organizations' results to the overall database results. These reports are sent via a secured FTP site upon the participating organization's request.

    Database results and individual participant reports can serve a variety of purposes:

    • Identifying areas for quality improvement at multiple levels, including medical group, practice site, and individual practitioner.

    • Briefing senior leadership on patients' views of the health care they receive.

    • Supporting public reporting of patients' assessments of care.

    • Combining with other quality measures to examine health care outcomes.

    The CAHPS CG Database supports research by providing a de-identified analytic database. Much like the CAHPS Health Plan Database developed in 1998 (OMB Control Number 0935-0165, Expiration Date 5/31/2020), researchers can use the CAHPS CG Survey Database to examine:

    • Disparities in CAHPS satisfaction scores by racial and ethnic characteristics of patients.

    • Comparisons of adult and child CAHPS survey results.

    Analysis of case-mix factors affecting CAHPS scores, such as patient age, education, and self-reported health status.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours for the participating in the CG database. The 11 POCs in exhibit 1 are the number of estimated vendors. Survey vendors assist the Health/Medical entities with submitting data submission materials. Survey vendors generally submit all required survey data and other materials other than the DUA. The 86 POCs in exhibit 1 are the number of estimated participating Health/Medical entities based on 2017 submission.

    Each vendor will register online for submission. The online Registration Form will require about 5 minutes to complete. The DUA will be completed by the 86 participating Health/Medical entities. Vendors do not sign DUAs. The DUA process requires about 15 minutes to sign and return by fax, mail or to upload directly to the submission system and includes an accompanying practice site excel file that is uploaded to the submission system. Each submitter will provide a copy of their questionnaire and the survey data file in the required file format. Survey data files must conform to the data file layout specifications provided by the CAHPS Database. The average number of data submissions per vendor is estimated to be 10. Once a data file is uploaded, the file will be automatically checked to ensure it conforms to the specifications and a data file status report will be produced and made available to the submitter. Submitters will review each report and will be expected to fix any errors in their data file and resubmit if necessary. It will take about one hour to complete each file submission. The total burden is estimated to be 133 hours annually.

    Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Number of
  • responses for
  • each POC
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Registration Form 11 1 5/60 1 Data Use Agreement 86 1 15/60 22 Data Submission 11 10 1 110 Total 108 NA NA 133

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to complete the submission process. The cost burden is estimated to be $6,602 annually.

    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Registration Form 11 1 a 40.95 $41 Data Use Agreement 86 22 b 93.44 2,056 Data Files Submission 11 110 c 40.95 4,505 Total 108 133 NA 6,602 * National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2016, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” (a) and (c) Based on the mean hourly wages for Computer Programmer (15-1131). (b) Based on the mean hourly wage for Chief Executives (11-1011). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Francis D. Chesley, Jr., Acting Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15104 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10669] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:

    OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806, OR Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of the following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Health Equity Technical Assistance Monitoring and Tracking; Use: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of Minority Health (OMH) developed the CMS Equity Plan for Improving Quality in Medicare (CMS Equity Plan for Medicare). The Plan outlines CMS' path to help advance health equity by improving the quality of care provided to minority and other underserved Medicare beneficiaries, particularly those with disparities in chronic diseases. CMS identified six high-impact priority areas based on a review of the evidence base and stakeholder input. These priorities encompass both system- and community-level approaches to achieve equity in Medicare. Priority 2: Evaluate Disparities Impacts and Integrate Equity Solutions Across CMS Programs, focuses on increasing understanding of the impact CMS programs have on health disparities and on identifying, developing and integrating proven solutions to improve their impact on vulnerable populations.

    CMS created a Health Equity Technical Assistance (TA) email (He[email protected]) to support CMS programs as they integrate health equity into their programs. This TA offers guidance from health equity subject matter experts on a variety of topics including reviewing data to identify health disparities, identifying root causes of health disparities, gaining an organizational champion, building organizational capacity to address health disparities, implementing interventions, tracking success of intervention, and serves as a portal to access health equity resources. Form Number: CMS-10669 (OMB control number: 0938—New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits); Number of Respondents: 274; Total Annual Responses 274; Total Annual Hours: 23. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Alexandra Bryden at 410-786-2076).

    Dated: July 11, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15146 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Projects

    Title: U.S. Repatriation Program Forms.

    OMB No.: 0970—NEW (two of the forms have prior OMB No: [SSA-3955 & SSA-2061])

    Description: The United States (U.S.) Repatriation Program was established by Title XI, Section 1113 of the Social Security Act (Assistance for U.S. Citizens Returned from Foreign Countries) to provide temporary assistance to U.S. citizens and their dependents who have been identified by the Department of State (DOS) as having returned, or been brought from a foreign country to the U.S. because of destitution, illness, war, threat of war, or a similar crisis, and are without available resources immediately accessible to meet their needs. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was provided with the authority to administer this Program. On or about 1994, this authority was delegated by the HHS Secretary to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and later re-delegated by ACf to the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Repatriation Program works with States, Federal agencies, and non-governmental organizations to provide eligible individuals with temporary assistance for up to 90-days. This assistance is in the form of a loan and must be repaid to the Federal Government.

    The Program was later expanded in response to legislation enacted by Congress to address the particular needs of persons with mental illness (24 U.S.C. Sections 321 through 329). Further refinements occurred in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 11490 (as amended) where HHS was given the responsibility to “develop plans and procedures for assistance at ports of entry to U.S. personnel evacuated from overseas areas, their onward movement to final destination, and follow-up assistance after arrival at final destination.” In addition, under E.O. 12656 (53 CFR 47491), “Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities,” HHS was given the lead responsibility to develop plans and procedures in order to provide assistance to U.S. citizens and others evacuated from overseas areas.

    Overall, the Program manages two major activities, Emergency and Non-emergency Repatriation Activities. The ongoing routine arrivals of individual repatriates and the repatriation of individuals with mental illness constitute the Program Non-emergency activities. Emergency activities are comprised of group repatriations (evacuations of 50-500 individuals) and emergency repatriations (evacuations of 500 or more individuals). Operationally, these activities involve different kinds of preparation, resources, and implementation. However, the core Program policies and administrative procedures are essentially the same. The Program provides services through agreements with local repatriation service providers (e.g. States, federal agencies, non-governmental agencies, etc.). For the purpose of this Program, local repatriation service provider (local provider) has the same definition of “agency” as defined under 45 CFR 212.1 (i).

    1. The HHS Repatriation Program Emergency and Group Processing Form: Under 45 CFR 211 and 212, ORR is to make findings setting forth the pertinent facts and conclusions according to established standards to determine whether an individual is an eligible person. This form allows authorized staff to gather necessary information to determine eligibility and needed services. This form is to be utilized during emergencies and group repatriations. Individuals interested in receiving Repatriation assistance will complete appropriate portions of this form. State personnel will utilize this form as a guide to perform an initial eligibility and needs assessment. An authorized federal staff from the ACF will make final eligibility determinations through the approval of this form.

    2. The U.S. Repatriation Program Privacy and Repayment Agreement Form: Under 45 CFR 211 and 212, individuals who receive Program assistance are required to repay the federal government for the cost associated to the services received. This form authorizes ORR to release personal identifiable information to partners for the purpose of providing services to eligible repatriates. In addition, through this form, eligible repatriates agree to accept services under the terms and conditions of the Program. Specifically, eligible repatriates commit to repay the federal government for all services received while in the Program. This form is to be completed by eligible repatriates or authorized legal custodian. Exception applies to unaccompanied minors and individuals eligible under 45 CFR 211, if no legal custodian is identified.

    3. Relinquish Repatriation Services Form: For individuals who are eligible to receive repatriation assistance but opt to relinquish services, this form is utilized to confirm and record repatriate's decision to refuse Program assistance. This form is to be completed by eligible repatriates or authorized legal custodian. Exception applies to unaccompanied minors and individuals eligible under 45 CFR 211, if no legal custodian is identified.

    4. The U.S. Repatriation Program Emergency Financial Form: Under Section 1113 of the Social Security Act, ORR is authorized to provide temporary assistance directly or through utilization of the services and facilities of appropriate public or private agencies and organizations, in accordance with agreements providing for payment, as may be determined by ORR. This form is to be utilized and completed by ORR local providers to request reimbursement of reasonable and allowable costs, both administrative and actual temporary services, after emergency activities.

    5. The U.S. Repatriation Program Non-emergency Reimbursement Form: Under Section 1113 of the Social Security Act, ORR is authorized to provide temporary assistance directly or through arrangements, in accordance with agreements providing for payment, as may be determined by ORR. This form is to be utilized and completed by ORR local providers to request reimbursement of reasonable and allowable costs, both administrative and actual temporary services.

    6. The U.S. Repatriation Program Financial Waiver Request Form: In accordance with 45 CFR 211 & 212 individuals who have received Repatriation assistance may be eligible to receive a waiver or deferral of their repatriation loan. This form is to be completed by eligible repatriates, authorized legal custodian, or the repatriation local provider. Exception applies to unaccompanied minors and individuals eligible under 45 CFR 211, if no legal custodian is identified.

    7. The U.S. Repatriation Program Temporary Assistance Extension Request Form: Under 45 CFR 211 & 212 temporary assistance may be furnished beyond the 90 days eligibility period. This form is to be completed by the eligible repatriates, authorized legal custodian, or the repatriation local provider. This form should be submitted to ORR or its authorized grantee 14 days prior to the expiration of the 90 days eligibility period.

    8. The U.S. Repatriation Program Individual Case Management Report and Financial Claim Form: Under Section 1113 of the Social Security Act, ORR is authorized to provide temporary assistance directly or through agreements with public and private agencies. This form is to be utilized and completed by ORR local provider to request reimbursement of reasonable and allowable costs, both administrative and actual temporary services. This form should also be utilized by the local repatriation provider for submit case updates. This forms is to be completed by authorized local providers.

    Respondents: Repatriation Program local repatriation service provider and individuals repatriated or evacuated by DOS from overseas. These respondents are authorized under Title XI, Section 1113 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1313), Executive Order 12656 (amended by E.O. 13074, February 9, 1998; E.O. 13228, October 8, 2001; E.O. 13286, February 28, 2003), and 45 CFR 211 & 212.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • U.S. Repatriation Program Emergency and Group Processing Form 500 or more 1 0.15 75 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Privacy and Repayment Agreement Form: 1000 or more 1 0.05 50 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Relinquish Temporary Assistance Form 50 or more 1 0.05 0.8 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Emergency and Group Financial Form 4 or more 1 .20 4 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Non-emergency Monthly Financial Statement Form 53 or more 1 0.20 10.6 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Loan Waiver Request Form 100 or more 1 1 100 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Temporary Assistance Extension Request Form 500 or more 1 0.20 100 or more. U.S. Repatriation Program Individual Case Management Report 1000 or more 1 or more 0.20 200 or more.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 540.4.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW, Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15149 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0341] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; New Animal Drugs for Investigational Use 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 August 15, 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 0910-0117. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867, [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.

    New Animal Drugs for Investigational Use OMB Control Number 0910-0117—Extension

    FDA has the authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to approve new animal drugs. A new animal drug application (NADA) cannot be approved until, among other things, the new animal drug has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for its intended use(s). In order to properly test a new animal drug for an intended use, appropriate scientific investigations must be conducted. Under specific circumstances, section 512(j) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) permits the use of an investigational new animal drug to generate data to support an NADA approval. Section 512(j) of the FD&C Act authorizes us to issue regulations relating to the investigational use of new animal drugs.

    Our regulations in 21 CFR part 511 set forth the conditions for investigational use of new animal drugs and require reporting and recordkeeping. The information collected is necessary to protect the public health. We use the information to determine that investigational animal drugs are distributed only to qualified investigators, adequate drug accountability records are maintained, and edible food products from treated food-producing animals are safe for human consumption. We also use the information collected to monitor the validity of the studies submitted to us to support new animal drug approval.

    Reporting: Our regulations require that certain information be submitted to us in a “Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption for a New Animal Drug” (NCIE) to qualify for the exemption and to control shipment of the new animal drug and prevent potential abuse. The NCIE must contain, among other things, the following specific information: (1) Identity of the new animal drug, (2) labeling, (3) statement of compliance of any nonclinical laboratory studies with good laboratory practices, (4) name and address of each clinical investigator, (5) the approximate number of animals to be treated or amount of new animal drug(s) to be shipped, and (6) information regarding the use of edible tissues from investigational animals (§ 511.1(b)(4) (21 CFR 511.1(b)(4)). If the new animal drug is to be used in food-producing animals, e.g., cattle, swine, chickens, fish, etc., certain data must be submitted to us to obtain authorization for the use of edible food products from treated food-producing animals (§ 511.1(b)(5)). We require sponsors upon request to submit information with respect to the investigation to determine whether there are grounds for terminating the exemption (§ 511.1(b)(6)). We require sponsors to report findings that may suggest significant hazards pertinent to the safety of the new animal drug (§ 511.1(b)(8)(ii)). We also require reporting by importers of investigational new animal drugs for clinical investigational use in animals (§ 511.1(b)(9)). The information provided by the sponsor in the NCIE is needed to ensure that the proposed investigational use of the new animal drug is safe and that any edible food will not be distributed without proper authorization from FDA. Information contained in an NCIE submission is monitored under our Bio-Research Monitoring Program. This program permits us to monitor the validity of the studies and to ensure the proper use of the drugs is maintained by the investigators.

    Recordkeeping: If the new animal drug is only for tests in vitro or in laboratory research animals, the person distributing the new animal drug must maintain records showing the name and post office address of the expert or expert organization to whom it is shipped and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each shipment and delivery for a period of 2 years after such shipment or delivery (§ 511.1(a)(3) and (b)(3)). We require complete records of the investigation, including records of the receipt and disposition of each shipment or delivery of the investigational new animal drug (§ 511.1(b)(7)). We also require records of all reports received by a sponsor from investigators to be retained for 2 years after the termination of an investigational exemption or approval of a new animal drug application (§ 511.1(b)(8)(i)).

    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this collection of information are persons who use new animal drugs for investigational purposes. Investigational new animal drugs are used primarily by drug industry firms, academic institutions, and the government. Investigators may include individuals from these entities, as well as research firms and members of the medical professions.

    In the Federal Register of February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7735), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    511.1(b)(4); submission of NCIE 104 15.38 1,600 1 1,600 511.1(b)(5); submission of data to obtain authorization for the use of edible food products 104 0.30 31 8 248 511.1(b)(6); submission of any additional information upon request of FDA 104 0.02 2 1 2 511.1(b)(8)(ii); reporting of findings that may suggest significant hazards pertinent to the safety of the new animal drug 104 0.14 15 2 30 511.1(b)(9); reporting by importers of investigational new animal drugs for clinical investigational use in animals 104 0.14 15 8 120 Total 1,663 2,000 1.There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section/activity Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of records
  • per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total
  • annual
  • records
  • Average
  • burden
  • per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total
  • hours
  • 511.1(a)(3); maintain records showing the name and post office address of the expert or expert organization to whom the new animal drug is shipped and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each shipment and delivery for a period of 2 years after such shipment or delivery 104 2.5 260 1 260 511.1(b)(3); maintain records showing the name and post office address of the expert or expert organization to whom the new animal drug or feed containing same is shipped and the date, quantity, and batch or code mark of each shipment and delivery for a period of 2 years after such shipment or delivery 104 15.38 1,600 1 1,600 511.1(b)(7); maintain records of the investigation, including records of the receipt and disposition of each shipment or delivery of the investigational new animal drug 104 15.38 1,600 3.5 5,600 511.1(b)(8)(i); maintain records of all reports received by a sponsor from investigators 104 15.38 1,600 3.5 5,600 Total 5,060 13,060 1.There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The estimate of the time required for reporting requirements, record preparation, and maintenance for this collection of information is based on our informal communication with industry. Based on the number of sponsors subject to animal drug user fees, we estimate that there are 104 respondents. We use this estimate consistently throughout the table and calculate the “number of responses per respondent” by dividing the total annual responses by number of respondents. Additional information needed to make a final calculation of the total burden hours (i.e., the number of respondents, the number of recordkeepers, the number of NCIEs received, etc.) is derived from our records. The burden for this information collection has changed since the last OMB approval. We estimate an overall increase in burden that we attribute to an increase in the number of annual responses and records.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15087 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2515] Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs To Treat Patients on a Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs to Treat Patients on a Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs.” This draft guidance is intended to clarify the recommended approach for sponsors developing drugs to treat hypertension for patients who are on a background of multiple antihypertensive drugs.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 14, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2515 for “Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs to Treat Patients on a Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Grant, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4160, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-2240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Hypertension: Conducting Studies of Drugs to Treat Patients on a Background of Multiple Antihypertensive Drugs.” This draft guidance is intended to clarify the recommended approach for sponsors developing drugs to treat hypertension for patients who are on a background of multiple antihypertensive drugs. Sponsors have approached FDA to discuss development programs for drugs intended to treat resistant hypertension, which sponsors have defined as hypertension not adequately controlled by maximally tolerated doses of three or more antihypertensive drugs with different mechanisms of action. FDA encourages development of additional classes of drugs for hypertension, particularly classes of drugs that demonstrate effects when added to currently available therapies.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on conducting studies of drugs to treat hypertension in patients on a background of multiple antihypertensive drugs. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collection of information in the guidance for industry entitled “Hypertension Indication: Drug Labeling for Cardiovascular Outcome Claims” (available at https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm075072.pdf) has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0670.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15092 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements 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 August 15, 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 0910-0608. 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.

    Petition To Request an Exemption From 100 Percent Identity Testing of Dietary Ingredients: Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements—21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)(ii) OMB Control Number 0910-0608—Extension

    This information collection supports Agency regulations. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (Pub. L. 103-417) added section 402(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342(g)), which provides, in part, that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, by regulation, prescribe good manufacturing practices for dietary supplements. Section 402(g)(1) of the FD&C Act states that a dietary supplement is adulterated if it has been prepared, packed, or held under the types of conditions that do not meet current good manufacturing practice regulations. Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) gives us the authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.

    Part 111 (21 CFR part 111) establishes the minimum Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) necessary for activities related to manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding dietary supplements to ensure the quality of the dietary supplement. Section 111.75(a)(1) of our regulations (21 CFR 111.75(a)(1)) establishes a procedure for a petition to request an exemption from 100 percent identity testing of dietary ingredients. Under § 111.75(a)(1)(ii), manufacturers may request an exemption from the requirements set forth in § 111.75(a)(1)(i) when the dietary ingredient is obtained from one or more suppliers identified in the petition. The regulation clarifies that we are willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, a manufacturer's conclusion, supported by appropriate data and information in the petition submission, that it has developed a system that it would implement as a sound, consistent means of establishing, with no material diminution of assurance compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing, the identity of the dietary ingredient before use.

    Section 111.75(a)(1) reflects our determination that manufacturers that test or examine 100 percent of the incoming dietary ingredients for identity can be assured of the identity of the ingredient. However, we recognize that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate, through various methods and processes in use over time for its particular operation, that a system of less than 100 percent identity testing would result in no material diminution of assurance of the identity of the dietary ingredient as compared to the assurance provided by 100 percent identity testing. To provide an opportunity for a manufacturer to make such a showing and reduce the frequency of identity testing of components that are dietary ingredients from 100 percent to some lower frequency, we added to § 111.75(a)(1), an exemption from the requirement of 100 percent identity testing when a manufacturer petitions the Agency for such an exemption to 100 percent identity testing under § 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30) and the Agency grants such exemption. Such a procedure would be consistent with our stated goal, as described in the CGMP final rule, of providing flexibility in the CGMP requirements. Section 111.75(a)(1)(ii) sets forth the information a manufacturer is required to submit in such a petition. The regulation also contains a requirement to ensure that the manufacturer keeps our response to a petition submitted under § 111.75(a)(1)(ii) as a record under § 111.95 (21 CFR 111.95). The collection of information in § 111.95 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0606.

    In the Federal Register of April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15159), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. One comment was received suggesting that “microbial cultures and probiotics should not be required to go through such a process to ensure exemption from the Agency's 100 percent identity testing requirement,” but did not suggest a revision to the estimated burden. We appreciate this comment, however, we believe that the current requirements impose minimal information collection while simultaneously ensuring the safety of dietary supplements.

    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR section; activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    111.75(a)(1)(ii); Determining whether specifications are met 1 1 1 8 8 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Since OMB's last approval of the information collection, we have received no petitions. We therefore retain the currently approved estimated burden which assumes no more than one petition will be submitted annually. We further assume it would take respondents 8 hours to prepare the factual and legal information necessary to support a petition for exemption and to prepare the petition, for a total of 8 burden hours annually. These figures are based on our experience with the information collection.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15088 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0001] Scientific Conference: Opioid and Nicotine Use, Dependence, and Recovery—Influences of Sex and Gender; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Office of Women's Health, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and Center for Tobacco Products are announcing the following conference entitled “Scientific Conference: Opioid and Nicotine Use, Dependence, and Recovery—Influences of Sex and Gender.” The purpose of the conference is to discuss the biological (sex) and sociological (gender) influences on misuse, abuse, and cessation of opioids and tobacco. Researchers, educators, and clinicians may benefit from attending this multidisciplinary review and update on opioid and tobacco.

    DATES:

    The two-day conference will be held on September 27, 2018 (8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.) and September 28, 2018 (8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.). See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The conference will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503-A), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the conference participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn Jones, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 2333, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, [email protected], 301-796-9940.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety and efficacy of FDA-regulated products. This conference will provide the Agency with further insight into the devastating public health crises caused by pervasive opioid and tobacco use. Drug overdose deaths and opioid-involved deaths continue to increase in the United States. Many of the drug overdose deaths (more than 6 out of 10) involve an opioid. Since 1999, the number of overdose deaths involving opioids (including prescription opioids and heroin) quadrupled. Drug overdose deaths and opioid-involved deaths continue to increase in the United States. Of the 63,632 drug overdose deaths in 2016, 66.4 percent (42,249) involved opioids, with increases across age groups, racial/ethnic groups, urbanization levels, and multiple states. Combustible cigarettes have been identified as the dominant cause of tobacco-related disease and are responsible for more than 20 million premature deaths since the first Surgeon General's report in 1964. Together, opioid and tobacco use are the leading causes of preventable disease and death in the United States, and women are increasingly affected. Sex and gender differences may influence susceptibility to substance abuse, which could have implications for optimal prevention and treatment. Gender influencers also impact public health from a familial and environmental perspective. Researchers, educators, and clinicians must be able to recognize and consider both sex and gender differences to identify and treat women most at risk.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Conference

    The conference will include presentations and panel discussions by experts in the field of opioid and tobacco research, professional education, and clinical care on the biological (sex) and sociological (gender) influences on misuse, abuse, and cessation of opioids and tobacco. Each panel discussion will have a Q&A session to respond to questions from in-person attendees.

    III. Participating in the Conference

    Registration: To register for the Scientific Conference: Opioid and Nicotine Use, Dependence, and Recovery—Influences of Sex and Gender, please visit the following website: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/scientific-conference-opioid-and-nicotine-use-dependence-and-recovery-influences-of-sex-and-gender-tickets-47087275308.

    Registration is free and in-person seating is limited. The conference will also be available for viewing via webcast. Persons interested in attending or viewing this conference must register online by September 24, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited; therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. Registrants will receive confirmation when they have been accepted. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please email Gwendolyn Jones at [email protected] (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than September 24, 2018.

    Streaming Webcast of the public meeting: This public meeting will also be webcast and can only be viewed if registered. To register, please go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/scientific-conference-opioid-and-nicotine-use-dependence-and-recovery-influences-of-sex-and-gender-tickets-47087275308. Registrants will receive confirmation and information about accessing the webcast when they have been accepted. FDA has verified the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15096 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-4318] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other Entities 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 August 15, 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-NEW and title “Guidance for Industry on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other Entities.” 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 on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other Entities OMB Control Number—NEW

    This information collection supports the Agency guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry on Compounding and Repackaging of Radiopharmaceuticals by State-Licensed Nuclear Pharmacies, Federal Facilities, and Certain Other Entities.”

    Under current law, radiopharmaceuticals that are compounded by entities that are not registered with FDA as outsourcing facilities, and radiopharmaceuticals that are repackaged, are subject to all applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) related to drug production. Because Congress explicitly excluded radiopharmaceuticals from section 503A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353a) (see section 503A(d)(2)), compounded radiopharmaceuticals are not eligible for the exemptions under section 503A from section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning new drug approval requirements), section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning labeling with adequate directions for use), and section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice requirements). In addition, the FD&C Act does not provide an exemption for repackaged radiopharmaceuticals.

    FDA developed this guidance document to describe the conditions under which the Agency generally does not intend to take action for violations of sections 505, 502(f)(1), and 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act when a State-licensed nuclear pharmacy, Federal facility, or other facility that is not an outsourcing facility and that holds a radioactive materials license for medical use issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or by an Agreement State compounds or repackages radiopharmaceuticals for human use.

    One of the guidance document's conditions is that the compounded radiopharmaceutical is not essentially a copy of an approved radiopharmaceutical. If a compounder intends to rely on a determination from a prescriber that there is a change between the compounded radiopharmaceutical and the comparable approved radiopharmaceutical that produces a clinical difference for an identified individual patient, either the prescribing practitioner or the compounder documents the determination on the prescription or order in writing. This documentation reflects a conversation with the prescribing practitioner, and the compounder maintains records of the prescription or order documenting this determination.

    In the Federal Register of December 29, 2016 (81 FR 96011), FDA published a notice of availability for the draft guidance, including a 60-day notice soliciting public comment on the information collection recommendations. Several comments were received and are discussed below; however, none of the comments suggested we revise the burden estimate from our 60-day notice.

    (Comment 1) One commenter said documentation of a minor deviation from an approved radiopharmaceutical should remain at the facility that performed the minor deviation.

    (Response 1) The documentation condition (i.e., documentation of a prescriber's determination that there is a change that produces a clinical difference between the compounded radiopharmaceutical and the comparable FDA-approved radiopharmaceutical for an identified individual patient) does not apply to compounding that consists only of minor deviations as defined in the guidance document (i.e., a change from the approved labeling in radioactivity, volume, or the step-by-step procedures made when compounding the radiopharmaceutical from an FDA-approved drug product in a patient-ready dose). The documentation condition applies to compounding a radiopharmaceutical that involves manipulation other than minor deviations.

    (Comment 2) One commenter supports the requirement for notating clinical differences, particularly for documenting both the change to the radiopharmaceutical and the reason that the change is important for the patient.

    (Response 2) FDA concurs with this commenter's views about the importance of the documentation. FDA's guidance document states that the documentation condition would be met if the prescription for the compounded radiopharmaceutical makes clear that the prescriber identified the relevant change between the approved radiopharmaceutical and the compounded radiopharmaceutical and the clinical difference that the change produces for the patient.

    (Comment 3) One commenter recommended that the guidance document require written documentation when a commercially manufactured radiopharmaceutical is compounded for a patient because the radiopharmaceutical is unavailable due to a drug shortage.

    (Response 3) The guidance document explains that FDA does not consider a compounded radiopharmaceutical to be essentially a copy of a marketed FDA-approved radiopharmaceutical if the FDA-approved radiopharmaceutical is on FDA's drug shortage list (see section 506E of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356e)) at the time of compounding and distribution. FDA maintains a database for drug shortages. If the Agency identifies a compounded radiopharmaceutical that has the characteristics of a drug that is “essentially a copy,” FDA intends to review its database to determine whether there was a shortage of the approved radiopharmaceutical at the time of compounding and distribution.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Type of reporting Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average burden
  • per disclosure
  • Total hours
    Consultation between the compounder and prescriber and the notation on the prescription or order documenting the prescriber's determination of clinical difference 10 25 250 0.05 (3 minutes) 12.5 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The total estimated third-party disclosure burden for the guidance document is shown above.

    We estimate that a total of approximately 10 compounders annually (“No. of Respondents” in table 1, line 1) will consult a prescriber to determine whether they decided that the compounded radiopharmaceutical has a change that produces a clinical difference for an identified individual patient as compared to the comparable approved radiopharmaceutical. We estimate that compounders will document this determination on approximately 250 prescriptions or orders for compounded radiopharmaceuticals (“Total Annual Disclosures” in table 1, line 1). We estimate that the consultation between the compounder and the prescriber and noting this determination on each prescription or order that does not already document this determination will take approximately 3 minutes per prescription or order.

    In the Federal Register of December 29, 2016 (81 FR 96011), FDA also estimated the annual recordkeeping burden for maintaining records of prescriptions or orders documenting certain information from prescribers. While acquiring additional information from the public about State pharmacy practices since we published 81 FR 96011, FDA has determined that because the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with this collection of information would be incurred by compounders in the normal course of their activities, it is excluded from the definition of “burden” under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). FDA understands that maintaining records of prescriptions for compounded drug products is part of the usual course of the practice of compounding and selling drugs and is required by States' pharmacy laws and other State laws governing record keeping by healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15095 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0115] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) 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 August 15, 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 0910-0594. 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 and FDA Staff—Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Automated Blood Cell Separator Device Operating by Centrifugal or Filtration Separation Principle OMB Control Number 0910-0594—Extension

    Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), FDA may establish special controls, including performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, guidelines, and other appropriate actions it believes necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. The special control guidance serves as the special control for the automated blood cell separator device operating by centrifugal or filtration separation principle intended for the routine collection of blood and blood components (§ 864.9245 (21 CFR 864.9245)).

    For currently marketed products not approved under the premarket approval process, the manufacturer should file with FDA for 3 consecutive years an annual report on the anniversary date of the device reclassification from class III to class II or on the anniversary date of the 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) clearance. Any subsequent change to the device requiring the submission of a premarket notification in accordance with section 510(k) of the FD&C Act should be included in the annual report. Also, a manufacturer of a device determined to be substantially equivalent to the centrifugal or filtration-based automated cell separator device intended for the routine collection of blood and blood components should comply with the same general and special controls.

    The annual report should include, at a minimum, a summary of anticipated and unanticipated adverse events that have occurred and that are not required to be reported by manufacturers under Medical Device Reporting (MDR) (part 803 (21 CFR part 803)). The reporting of adverse device events summarized in an annual report will alert FDA to trends or clusters of events that might be a safety issue otherwise unreported under the MDR regulation. The report should also include any subsequent change to the preamendments class III device requiring a 30-day notice in accordance with 21 CFR 814.39(f).

    Reclassification of this device from class III to class II relieves manufacturers of the burden of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e) and may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by reducing the burden. Although the special control guidance recommends that manufacturers of these devices file with FDA an annual report for 3 consecutive years, this would be less burdensome than the current postapproval requirements under 21 CFR part 814, subpart E, including the submission of periodic reports under 21 CFR 814.84.

    Collecting or transfusing facilities, the intended users of the device, and the device manufacturers have certain responsibilities under the Federal regulations. For example, collecting or transfusing facilities are required to maintain records of any reports of complaints of adverse reactions (21 CFR 606.170), while the device manufacturer is responsible for conducting an investigation of each event that is reasonably known to the manufacturer and evaluating the cause of the event (§ 803.50(b) (21 CFR 803.50(b))). In addition, manufacturers of medical devices are required to submit to FDA individual adverse event reports of death, serious injury, and malfunctions (§ 803.50).

    In the special control guidance document, FDA recommends that manufacturers include in their three annual reports a summary of adverse reactions maintained by the collecting or transfusing facility or similar reports of adverse events collected.

    In the Federal Register of February 22, 2018, (83 FR 7745), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. One comment was received but did not respond to any of the four information collection topics solicited and is therefore not discussed here.

    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Reporting activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total
  • hours
  • Annual Report 3 1 3 5 15 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on FDA records, there are approximately three manufacturers of automated blood cell separator devices. We estimate that the manufacturers will spend approximately 5 hours preparing and submitting the annual report. The total burden hours are reduced from previous collections due to a decrease in the number of manufacturers.

    Other burden hours required for § 864.9245 are reported and approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 (premarket notification submission 510(k), 21 CFR part 807, subpart E), and OMB control number 0910-0437 (MDR, part 803).

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15089 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Declaration Regarding Emergency Use of Treatment for Uncontrolled Hemorrhage Due to Agents of Military Combat AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this notice pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. On June 7, 2018, Patrick M. Shanahan, Deputy Secretary of Defense, determined in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as delegated by the Secretary of Defense, that there is a military emergency or significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of an attack with an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to those forces. More specifically, U.S. Forces are now deployed in multiple locations where they serve at heightened risk of an enemy attack with agents of military combat, including firearms, projectiles, and explosive devices, that may cause major and imminently life-threatening combat casualties involving uncontrolled hemorrhage.

    On the basis of this determination, on July 9, 2018 the Secretary declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of Freeze Dried Plasma (FDP) to treat uncontrolled hemorrhage due to agents of military combat (e.g., firearms, projectiles, and explosive devices) in emergency situations when plasma is not available for use or its use is not practical, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.

    DATES:

    The declaration is effective July 9, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Telephone (202) 205-2882 (this is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Under Section 564 of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of HHS, may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing (1) the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear (“CBRN”) agent or agents; (2) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act 1 sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad; (3) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, of attack with (i) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (ii) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; or (4) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.

    1 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b, which states: “[t]he Homeland Security Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary and the heads of other agencies as appropriate, shall on an ongoing basis—(i) assess current and emerging threats of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents; and (ii) determine which of such agents present a material threat against the United States population sufficient to affect national security.”

    Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the FDA Commissioner may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met. The determination of a military emergency or significant potential for a military emergency by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying emergency use of French FDP by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enable the FDA Commissioner to issue an EUA for FDP in emergency situations when plasma is not available for use or its use is not practical for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

    II. Determination of a Military Emergency or Significant Potential for a Military Emergency by the Deputy Secretary of Defense

    On June 7, 2018, Patrick M. Shanahan, Deputy Secretary of Defense, determined in accordance with section 564(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3(b)(1)(B), as delegated by the Secretary of Defense, that there is a military emergency or significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of an attack with an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to those forces. The Deputy Secretary further stated that, more specifically, U.S. Forces are now deployed in multiple locations where they serve at heightened risk of an enemy attack with agents of military combat, including firearms, projectiles, and explosive devices, that may cause major and imminently life-threatening combat casualties involving uncontrolled hemorrhage.

    III. Declaration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    On July 9, 2018, on the basis of the Deputy Secretary of Defense's determination that there is a military emergency or significant potential for a military emergency involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of an attack with an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to those forces, I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of FDP to treat uncontrolled hemorrhage due to agents of military combat (e.g., firearms, projectiles, and explosive devices) in emergency situations when plasma is not available for use or its use is not practical, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.

    Notice of any EUAs issued by the FDA Commissioner pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly in the Federal Register as required under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

    Alex M. Azar II, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15152 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-37-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [Docket No. USCBP-2018-0026] Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) will hold its public meeting on Wednesday, August 1, 2018 via webinar. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The COAC will meet on Wednesday, August 1, 2018 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST. Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar link and conference phone number will be provided to all registrants by 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2018. For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.

    Pre-Registration: Members of the public who plan to attend the meeting, please register online at: https://teregistration.cbp.gov/index.asp?w=137 by 4 p.m. EST, July 31, 2018. Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.

    Members of the public who are pre-registered to attend via webinar and later need to cancel, please do so by 9:00 a.m. EST on August 1, 2018 utilizing the following link: https://teregistration.cbp.gov/cancel.asp?w=137.

    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues the committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.

    Comments must be submitted in writing no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on July 31, 2018, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2018-0026, and may be submitted by one (1) of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 325-4290, Attention Florence Constant-Gibson.

    Mail: Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number (USCBP-2018-0026) for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at https://www.regulations.gov. Please do not submit personal information to this docket.

    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments, go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket Number USCBP-2018-0026. To submit a comment, click the “Comment Now!” button located on the top-right hand side of the docket page.

    There will be multiple public comment periods held during the meeting on August 1, 2018. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to two (2) minutes or less to facilitate greater participation. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker. Please note that the public comment period for speakers may end before the time indicated on the schedule that is posted on the CBP web page, https://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Florence Constant-Gibson, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290; or Mr. Bradley Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations and Designated Federal Officer for COAC at (202) 344-1440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) provides advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.

    Agenda

    The Designated Federal Officer will introduce the newly appointed, re-appointed, and alternate COAC members. The COAC will also hear from the following subcommittees on the topics listed below and then will review, deliberate, provide observations, and formulate recommendations on how to proceed:

    1. The Exports Subcommittee will discuss a path forward for its work and the work of the Export Manifest Working Group for the 15th Term COAC. There will also be an update on the automated export manifest pilots, and on progress in implementing a post-departure filing pilot as part of the ocean pilot.

    2. The Trusted Trader Subcommittee will present an update from the C-TPAT Minimum Security Criteria Working Group on its recommendation regarding CBP's plans to roll out new C-TPAT criteria. The subcommittee will also provide an update on the progress on the Trusted Trader Strategy and the formation of a new Trade Compliance Working Group.

    3. The Trade Modernization Subcommittee will discuss the progress of the Regulatory Reform Working Group's efforts to identify and prioritize areas of regulations administered by CBP which can be reformed and the Foreign Trade Zone Regulations Working Group. In addition, the subcommittee will discuss the progress being made in the E-Commerce Working Group.

    4. The Trade Enforcement and Revenue Collection (TERC) Subcommittee will provide updates from the Anti-Dumping/Countervailing Duties (AD/CVD), Bond, Forced Labor and Intellectual Property Rights Working Groups and will also speak to the lessons learned from the risk-based bonding tabletop exercise.

    Meeting materials will be available by July 31, 2018 at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/stakeholder-engagement/coac/coac-public-meetings.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Bradley F. Hayes, Executive Director, Office of Trade Relations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15107 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-7001-N-36] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Human Trafficking Housing Partnership AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 27, 2018 at 83 FR 18584.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Human Trafficking Housing Partnership.

    OMB Approval Number: 2506-New.

    Type of Request: New.

    Form Number: SF 424, HUD SF 424 SUPP (if applicable), HUD-2993 (if applicable), HUD-96011 (if applicable), HUD-2880, SF-LLL.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information to be collected will be used to rate applications, to determine eligibility for the Human Trafficking Housing Partnership and to establish grant amounts. Applicants, which must be state or local governments, nonprofit organizations, or a Federally recognized Indian Tribe or Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE), will respond to narrative prompts to demonstrate their experience and expertise in providing housing and services to victims of human trafficking and to describe their intended program design, that will address the needs for housing and services that will result in permanent housing placement and sufficient income to ensure permanent housing is maintained once assistance discontinues.

    Estimated Number of Respondents—Estimated Number of Responses Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Hourly
  • cost per
  • response
  • Annual
  • cost
  • Human Trafficking Housing Partnership Application 20.00 1.00 20.00 8.00 160.00 $39.07 $6,251.20 SF-424 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SF LLL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HUD-2880 20.00 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 39.07 390.70 HUD-50070 20.00 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 39.07 390.70 Certification Regarding Lobbying 20.00 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 39.07 390.70 HUD-2991 20.00 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 39.07 390.70 Code of Conduct 20.00 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 39.07 390.70 Subtotal 20.00 1.00 20.00 10.50 210.00 39.07 8,204.70 Annual Performance Reporting 20.00 1.00 20.00 4.00 80.00 39.07 3,125.60 Total 20.00 1.00 20.00 14.50 290.00 39.07 11,330.30
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Anna P. Guido, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15131 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-7001-N-38] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Congregate Housing Services Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inez C. Downs, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email [email protected], or telephone 202-402-8046. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Downs.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on April 18, 2018 at 83 FR 17186.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Congregate Housing Services Program.

    OMB Approved Number: 2502-0485.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: SF-424, 425, HUD-90003, HUD-90006, HUD-90198, HUD-91180-A, HUD-91178-A.

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: Completion of the Annual Report by grantees provides HUD with essential information about whom the grant is serving and what sort of services the beneficiaries receive using grant funds.

    The Summary Budget and the Annual Program Budget make up the budget of the grantee's annual extension request. Together the forms provide itemized expenses for anticipated program costs and a matrix of budgeted yearly costs. The budget forms show the services funded through the grant and demonstrate how matching funds, participant fees, and grant funds will be used in tandem to operate the grant program. Field staff approve the annual budget and request annual extension funds according to the budget. Field staff can also determine if grantees are meeting statutory and regulatory requirements through the evaluation of this budget.

    HUD will use the Payment Voucher to monitor use of grant funds for eligible activities over the term of the grant. The Grantee may similarly use the Payment Voucher to track and record their requests for payment reimbursement for grant-funded activities.

    Respondents: (i.e., affected public): Non-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 49.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 392.

    Frequency of Response: 8.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.56.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 611.52.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Inez C. Downs, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15129 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-7001-N-37] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling Demonstration and Impact Evaluation Collection AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806, Email: OIRA [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Person with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on March 23, 2018 at 83 FR 12806.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Pre-Purchase Homeownership Counseling Demonstration and Impact Evaluation collection.

    OMB Approval Number: 2528-0293.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is conducting a national study on the effectiveness of pre-purchase homeownership counseling services. This request covers four data collection activities: (1) Administering a final follow-up survey to study participants; (2) extending OMB approval #2528-0293 so that the study can continue to collect updated tracking information from study participants; and (3) extending OMB approval #2528-0293 so that the study can continue to collect consent from the co-borrowers of study participants; and (4) extending OMB approval #2528-0293 so that the study can continue to collect loan origination and servicing data from lenders. The final follow-up survey will be administered to study participants approximately 48 months after they completed the baseline survey. The final survey will provide a comparison of study participants' characteristics from the baseline survey and allow the study to better understand, document, and explain the impacts of first-time homebuyer education and counseling. As part of OMB approval #2528-0293, the study collects updated study participant contact information to locate study participants for the final follow-up survey. Maintaining contact with study participants over time is critical to minimizing attrition and ensuring high response rates to the follow-up surveys. Additionally, the collection of consent from study participants' co-borrowers is necessary to allow the study to collect data related to the characteristics and performance of study participants' mortgage loans. Lastly, as part of OMB approval #2528-0293, the study collects study participants' loan origination and service tracking data from the study's three participating lenders.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Up to 5,854 study participants; approximately 1,000 co-borrowers; and, staff at 3 lenders.

    The average time per study participant (up to 5,854 study participants) to complete the final follow-up survey is 30 minutes. The study mails study participant tracking letters twice per year. The average time for study participants' review of the letters and return of the tracking form is 5 minutes. The collection of co-borrower consent involves including the co-borrower consent form in the study's regular tracking letters, along with a request for the co-borrower to review, sign, and return the written consent form. For co-borrowers who do not return the written form, the study will collect consent verbally at the time of the interim survey. The study estimates that approximately 1,000 study participants will have co-borrowers. The co-borrowers' review of the co-borrower consent information and completion of the consent process is estimated to require approximately 5 minutes per co-borrower. The average time for lenders to prepare study participants' loan origination and performance data for the study team is 60 minutes. The study team will ask for this data semi-annually from each lender during the next 3 years from each lender. The total burden for the study is 3,949.64 hours: 3,903 hours for study participants, 83 hours for co-borrowers, and 6 hours for lenders.

    Estimated Number of Respondents/Estimated Number of Responses:

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Hourly
  • cost per
  • response
  • Annual
  • cost
  • Long-Term Follow-Up Survey 5,854.00 1.00 5,854.00 0.50 2,927.00 * $27.70 $81,077.90 Tracking Letter 5,854.00 2.00 11,708.00 0.08 936.64 * 27.70 25,944.92 Co-borrower consent form 1,000.00 1.00 1,000.00 0.08 80.00 * 27.70 2,216.00 Loan origination and performance data: Lenders 3.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 35.00 210.00 Total 12,711.00 3,949.64 109,448.82 * The average income that our study participants received in the last 12 months is $57,811. This estimate of average income is based on responses to the Short-Term Follow-Up Survey and was weighted to represent the full study sample using sample weights that adjust for follow-up survey nonresponse. Thus, the hourly rate for our study participants is estimated at $27.70 (using the U.S. Office of Personnel's national standard of 2,087 hours per year for a full-time employee).
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. Anna P. Guido, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15130 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLUTG02100/18X/L14400000.EU0000; UTU-92606] Notice of Realty Action; Proposed Modified Competitive Sale of Public Land, Utah AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering the modified competitive sale of 160 acres of public land in Emery County, Utah, at not less than the appraised fair market value to the adjacent landowners Hunter Prep Plant LLC, Ross Huntington, and Clinton Price.

    DATES:

    In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be received by August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all written comments concerning this notice to the BLM, Price Field Office, Attn: Hunter Plant Public Land Disposal, 125 S. 600 W, Price, Utah, 84501. Electronic mail will also be accepted and should be sent to [email protected] with “Hunter Plant Public Land Disposal” inserted in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaydon Mead, Realty Specialist, (435) 636-3646, at the above address, or email to [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following described public land in Emery County, Utah, is being considered for modified competitive sale, subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and 43 CFR parts 2711 and 2720:

    Salt Lake Meridian, Utah T. 19 S, R. 8 E, Sec. 21, E1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NW1/4, and NE1/4SW1/4.

    The area described contains 160 acres, according to the official plat of the survey of the said land, on file with the BLM.

    The proposed sale is in conformance with the BLM Price Field Office Resource Management Plan (PFO RMP) that was approved in October 2008. The parcel is identified for disposal by sale under Section 203 of FLPMA in the PFO RMP on page 2 of Appendix R-11. This parcel of land was identified for disposal because it is isolated from large blocks of public land making it difficult and uneconomic to manage. The land would be offered to the adjoining land owners on a modified competitive basis, with Hunter Prep Plant, LLC, as the designated bidder, giving them the right to meet the highest bid pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-2(a)(1). Conveyance of the identified public land would be subject to valid existing rights and encumbrances of record. Conveyance of any mineral interests pursuant to Section 209 of FLPMA will be analyzed during processing of the proposed sale. On July 16, 2018, the above-described land will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except the sale provisions of FLPMA. Until completion of the sale action, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting the identified public land. The segregative effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the Federal Register of a termination of the segregation, or July 16, 2020, unless extended by the BLM Utah State Director in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) prior to the termination date.

    For a period until August 30, 2018, interested parties and the general public may submit in writing any comments concerning the land being considered for sale, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the identified land, to the Field Manager, BLM Price Field Office, at the above address. In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be in writing and postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the initial date of publication of this notice. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Price Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2711.1-2.

    Edwin L. Roberson, State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15063 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [L71220000.JB0000;LVTFKX899000, WYW182548] Notice of Realty Action; Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Park County, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes a non-competitive (direct) sale of 1.31 acres of public land in Park County, Wyoming, to the Jeanne S. Moeller Trust pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, to resolve an unauthorized use of public lands. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of Section 203 of FLPMA, and BLM regulations. The appraised fair market value for the sale parcel is $1,250.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the sale until August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail written comments concerning this notice to Field Manager, BLM Cody Field Office, 1002 Blackburn Street, Cody, Wyoming 82414.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cara Blank, Realty Specialist, at the above address, by email at [email protected], or telephone 307-578-5912. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following described public land in Park County, Wyoming, has been examined and found suitable for sale under the authority of Section 203 of FLPMA, as amended:

    Sixth Principle Meridian T. 55 N, R. 100 W, Sec. 10, lot 4.

    The areas described contains 1.31 acres in Park County, Wyoming.

    The sale is in conformance with the BLM Cody Resource Management Plan, which identifies this parcel of public land as suitable for disposal on page 105 and management action 6011, approved on September 18, 2015. The parcel is not needed for any other Federal purpose. The regulations at 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a) permit the BLM to make direct sales of public lands when a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would be best served by a direct sale. A competitive sale is not appropriate because these lands contain improvements owned by the Jeanne S. Moeller Trust, rendering the land not usable by the public. The public interest would be served by resolving this inadvertent unauthorized use and receiving the fair market value for the lands.

    On August 30, 2018, the above-described lands will be segregated from appropriation under the public lands laws, including the mining laws, except the sale provision of the FLPMA. Until completion of the sale action, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting the public land, except applications for the amendment of previously-filed, right-of-way applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 2886.15. The temporary segregative effect will terminate upon the issuance of a patent, publication in the Federal Register of a termination of the segregation, or on July 16, 2020, unless extended by the BLM Wyoming State Director in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) prior to the termination date.

    In addition, this Notice will publish once each week for three weeks in the Powell Tribune newspaper.

    The following terms, conditions, and reservations will appear on the conveyance document for the sale parcel:

    1. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);

    2. A reservation of all minerals to the United States, and the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such minerals under applicable law and such regulations as established by the Secretary of the Interior, together with all necessary access and exit rights.

    3. The parcel is subject to valid existing rights.

    Only written comments submitted by postal service or overnight mail will be considered as properly filed. Electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone comments will not be considered.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Cody Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays.

    Any comments regarding the sale will be reviewed by the BLM Wyoming State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2711.

    Mary Jo Rugwell, Wyoming State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15061 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [18X.LLAZ921000.L14400000.BJ0000.LXSSA2250000.241A] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Arizona AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of official filing.

    SUMMARY:

    The plats of survey of the following described lands were officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona, on the dates indicated. Surveys announced in this notice are necessary for the management of lands administered by the agencies indicated.

    ADDRESSES:

    These plats will be available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, Bureau of Land Management, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427. Protests of the survey should be sent to the Arizona State Director at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerald Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona; (602) 417-9558; [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona

    The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing the amended lotting in section 30, Township 10 North, Range 10 East, accepted June 7, 2018, and officially filed June 8, 2018, for Group 9111, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary of section 26, a portion of the lines of Homestead Entry Survey No. 577, and a metes-and-bounds survey, partially surveyed Township 11 North, Range 10 East, accepted January 17, 2018, and officially filed January 18, 2018, for Group 1177, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram (APD), partially surveyed Township 11 North, Range 10 East, accepted January 17, 2018, and officially filed January 18, 2018, for Group 1177, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    This plat supersedes the APD approved November 26, 2013.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary of the Navajo Indian Reservation, from the southwest corner of the present reservation to the six mile corner, Township 21 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary of the Navajo Indian Reservation, from the six mile corner to the twelve mile corner, Township 22 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary of the Navajo Indian Reservation, from the twelve mile corner to the eighteen mile corner, a portion of the south boundary, and the establishment of the northeast township corner, partially surveyed Township 23 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram (APD), partially surveyed Township 23 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    This plat supersedes that portion of Arizona Protraction Diagram No. 47 for this area.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the west boundary of the Navajo Indian Reservation, from the eighteen mile corner to the intersection with the Little Colorado River, the meanders of the right bank of the Little Colorado River, and the establishment of the northeast township corner, partially surveyed Township 24 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram (APD), partially surveyed, Township 24 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    This plat supersedes that portion of Arizona Protraction Diagram No. 47 for this area.

    The plat, in five sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the Sixth Standard Parallel North (south boundary), a portion of the west boundary, the meanders of a portion of the right bank of the Little Colorado River, and the establishment of the northeast township corner and the standard corner of Township 25 North, Ranges 11 and 12 East, partially surveyed, Township 25 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram (APD), partially surveyed, Township 25 North, Range 11 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1169, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    This plat supersedes that portion of Protraction Diagram No. 47 for that area.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the Amended Protraction Diagram (APD), unsurveyed Township 3 North, Range 16 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    This plat supersedes the APD accepted November 26, 2013.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the survey of the south and east boundaries, the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, Township 40 North, Range 25 East, accepted April 26, 2018, and officially filed April 27, 2018, for Group 1173, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of the north boundary, Township 26 North, Range 29 East, the survey of the north boundary, the governing section line, a portion of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of certain sections, partially surveyed Township 27 North, Range 29 East, accepted June 11, 2018, and officially filed June 13, 2018, for Group 1178, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

    The supplemental plat, in one sheet, showing the amended lotting in section 34, Township 13 North, Range 2 West, accepted June 7, 2018, and officially filed June 8, 2018, for Group 9112, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the United States Forest Service.

    The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the east boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, a portion of patented mineral surveys in sections 1, 2, 11 and 12, and the metes-and-bounds survey of Tract 37, Township 2 South, Range 12 East, accepted June 28, 2018, and officially filed July 2, 2018, for Group 1168, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    The plat, in three sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the south and west boundaries, a portion of the subdivisional lines, portions of certain patented mineral surveys in sections 29, 31 and 32, the survey of a portion of the center line of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway No. 60, and a metes-and-bounds survey in section 31, Township 1 South, Range 13 East, accepted June 28, 2018, and officially filed July 2, 2018, for Group 1168, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    The plat, in one sheet, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, Township 2 South, Range 13 East, accepted June 28, 2018, and officially filed July 2, 2018, for Group 1168, Arizona.

    This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Land Management.

    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Arizona State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.

    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within 30 days after the protest is filed. Before including your address, or other personal information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.

    Gerald T. Davis, Chief Cadastral Surveyor of Arizona.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15098 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVS00560.L58530000.EU0000.241A; N-94460; 12-08807; MO# 4500115809; TAS:15X5232] Notice of Realty Action: Classification for Lease and/or Conveyance for Recreation and Public Purposes of Public Lands for a Park in the Northwest Portion of the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Vegas Field Office, has examined and found suitable for classification for lease and subsequent conveyance to the City of Las Vegas, approximately 10 acres of public land in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, and the Taylor Grazing Act. The City of Las Vegas proposes to use the 10 acres of land for a community park that will help meet future expanding needs in the northwestern part of the Las Vegas Valley.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the proposed classification for lease and conveyance of the land until August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail written comments to the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, Attn: Vanessa L. Hice, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130, or faxed to 775-515-5010.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roger Ketterling at the above address, or by telephone at 702-515-5087, or by email to [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The parcel is located south of Kyle Canyon Road, at Iron Mountain Road and Alpine Ridge Way in northwest Las Vegas and is legally described as:

    Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada T. 19 S, R. 59 E, sec. 1, SE1/4SE1/4SW1/4.

    The area described contains 10.00 acres in Clark County, Nevada.

    In accordance with the R&PP Act, the City of Las Vegas has filed an application to develop the above-described land as a community park consisting of large and small picnic shelters, ball parks, children's play area, pedestrian walkways, parking and turf open space play areas. Additional detailed information pertaining to this Notice, plan of development, and site plan is located in case file N-94460, which is available for review at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.

    The City of Las Vegas is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and is therefore a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act.

    Subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, prior to patent issuance, the holder of any right-of-way grant within the lease area may be given the opportunity to amend the right-of-way grant for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable.

    The land identified is not needed for any Federal purpose. The lease and/or conveyance is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan decision LD-1, approved on October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision issued on December 23, 2004, analyzed the sale parcels. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy (DNA), document number DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2017-0092-DNA, was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action. The City of Las Vegas has not applied for more than the 640-acre limitation for public purpose uses in a year and has submitted a statement in compliance with the regulations at 43CFR 2741.4(b).

    The lease and conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States:

    1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and

    2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits for the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

    Any lease and conveyance will also be subject to valid existing rights, will contain any terms or conditions required by law (including, but not limited to, any terms or conditions required by 43 CFR 2741.4), and will contain an appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessee's/patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the leased/patented lands. It will also contain any other terms and conditions deemed necessary and appropriate by the Authorized Officer.

    Upon publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, as well as issuance of any rights-of-way, except for lease and conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws.

    Interested parties may submit written comments on the suitability of the land for a public park in the City of Las Vegas. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs. Interested parties may also submit written comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, and whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision to lease and convey under the R&PP Act.

    Before including your address, phone number, email, address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Only written comments submitted to the Field Manager, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, will be considered properly filed. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action.

    In the absence of any adverse comments, the decision will become effective on September 14, 2018. The lands will not be available for lease and conveyance until after the decision becomes effective.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2741.5.

    Vanessa L. Hice, Assistant Field Manager, Division of Lands, Las Vegas Field Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15062 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCON04000.L71220000.EU0000.LVTFC1700130.17X; COC78146; FMV $800] Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of Public Land in Garfield County, Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing a non-competitive (direct) sale of 0.16 acres of public land in Garfield County, Colorado, to Ida Hoaglund, to resolve an inadvertent unauthorized use and occupancy of public land.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received no later than August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail written comments to Gloria Tibbetts, Acting Field Manager, Colorado River Valley Field Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, CO 81652. Written comments may also be submitted electronically to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monte Senor, Realty Specialist, BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office, telephone: (970) 876-9053, email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The direct sale is a result of an IBLA-sanctioned settlement agreement to resolve an appeal of a BLM trespass decision involving an unauthorized use of public land. In addition to cash compensation for the sale, the proponent will donate two public access easements to the United States to improve public access for hunting and other recreational opportunities. The donation will be processed, separately from the subject sale, under appropriate acquisition regulations and guidelines.

    The subject sale described in this notice will be processed pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and BLM disposal regulations. The appraised fair market value of the sale parcel is $800. The proposed sale meets the criteria for direct sales established in FLPMA, Section 203(a)(3) and 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a). Direct sales (without competition) may be used when, in the opinion of the authorized officer, a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would best be served by a direct sale. In accordance with BLM regulations, the BLM authorized officer finds the public interest would best be served by conducting a direct sale pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a)(5). This regulation allows a direct sale when a need exists to resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the lands.

    The subject parcel, which is located near Rulison Parachute Road and Cottonwood Creek in Garfield County, Colorado, is legally described as:

    Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado T. 7 S, R. 95 W, Sec. 2, lot 7.

    The area described contains 0.16 acres.

    This sale is in conformance with the BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, approved in June 2015.

    A parcel-specific Environmental Assessment (EA) document numbered DOI-BLM-CO-N0400-2018-0008-EA was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action. A copy of the EA is available online at: https://go.usa.gov/xQx6N.

    The proposed direct sale would be conducted in compliance with regulations contained in 43 CFR 2711.3-3, which allows the BLM to conduct direct sales of public lands when a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest is best served by a direct sale. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.1-2, the land would not be sold until after September 14, 2018, and this notice will be published once a week for 3 weeks in the Glenwood Springs Post Independent.

    The patent, if issued, would be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:

    1. Reservation of a right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C 945);

    2. A reservation of all mineral deposits in the land so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights;

    3. Valid existing rights and encumbrances of record including, but not limited to, rights-of-way for roads and public utilities; and

    4. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessees/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupation on the leased/patented lands;

    Information concerning the sale, appraisal, reservations, procedures and conditions, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for this proposed action are available for review during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, at the BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office, except during Federal holidays. Submit comments on this notice to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Any adverse comments regarding this sale will be reviewed by the BLM Colorado State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of timely filed objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2711.

    Gregory P. Shoop, Acting BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15060 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLUTG02100/18X/L54400000.EU0000/LVCLJ18J0760; UTU-92605] Notice of Realty Action; Proposed Direct Sale of Public Land, Utah AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering the direct sale (without competition) of 200 acres of public land in Emery County, Utah, at not less than the appraised fair market value to PacifiCorp.

    DATES:

    In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be received by August 30, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all written comments concerning this notice to the BLM, Price Field Office, Attn: Price Land Sale, 125 S 600 W, Price, Utah, 84501. Electronic mail will also be accepted and should be sent to [email protected] with “Price Land Sale” inserted in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaydon Mead, Realty Specialist, (435) 636-3646, at the above address, or email to [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following described public land in Emery County, Utah, is being considered for direct sale, subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and 43 CFR parts 2711 and 2720:

    Salt Lake Meridian, Utah T. 19 S, R. 8 E, Sec. 21, NE1/4 and NE1/4SE1/4.

    The area described contains 200 acres, according to the official plat of the survey of the said land, on file with the BLM.

    The proposed sale is in conformance with the BLM Price Field Office Resource Management Plan (PFO RMP) that was approved in October 2008. The parcel is identified for disposal, by sale, under Section 203 of the FLPMA in the PFO RMP on page 2 of Appendix R-11. This parcel is isolated from large blocks of public land making it difficult and uneconomic to manage. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-3(a)(4), the land would be offered to Pacificorp on a non-competitive basis due to the lack of public access and their ownership of the surrounding lands. Conveyance of the identified public land would be subject to valid existing rights and encumbrances of record. Conveyance of any mineral interests pursuant to Section 209 of the FLPMA will be analyzed during processing of the proposed sale. On July 16, 2018, the above-described land will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, except the sale provisions of the FLPMA. Until completion of the sale action, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting the identified public land. The segregative effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the Federal Register of a termination of the segregation, or July 16, 2020, unless extended by the BLM Utah State Director in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) prior to the termination date.

    For a period until August 30, 2018, interested parties and the general public may submit in writing any comments concerning the land being considered for sale, including notification of any encumbrances or other claims relating to the identified land, to the Field Manager, BLM Price Field Office, at the above address. In order to ensure consideration in the environmental analysis of the proposed sale, comments must be in writing and postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the initial date of publication of this notice. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BLM Price Field Office during regular business hours, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2711.1-2

    Edwin L. Roberson, State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15065 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-MWR-INDU-25223; PS.SMWLA0077.00.1] Minor Boundary Revision at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notification of boundary revision.

    SUMMARY:

    The boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 1.30 acres of land located in Porter County, Indiana, immediately adjacent to the boundary of the national lakeshore. The United States will acquire the parcel by a land exchange.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this boundary revision is July 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief Realty Officer Daniel L. Betts, National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Midwest Region, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska 68102, telephone (402) 661-1780.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100506(c), the boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore is modified to include 1.30 acres of adjacent land identified as Tract 09-131. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 626/140729, dated January, 2018.

    54 U.S.C. 100506(c) provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make this boundary revision upon publication of notice in the Federal Register. The Committees have been notified of this boundary revision. This boundary revision and subsequent acquisition will be accomplished in accordance with a settlement to a case pending in the Federal Court System regarding an encroachment onto Federal land. There will be no alienation of Federal land through the land exchange.

    Dated: April 25, 2018. Cameron H. Sholly, Regional Director, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15072 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2011-0012; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 189D0102R2] Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Final regulations for valuing gas produced from Indian leases, published August 10, 1999, require the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) to determine major portion prices and notify industry by publishing the prices in the Federal Register. The regulations also require ONRR to publish a due date for industry to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices. Consistent with these requirements, this notice provides major portion prices for the 12 months of calendar year 2016.

    DATES:

    The due date to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices is September 28, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Calculation of Prices Information: Robert Sudar, Manager, Market & Spatial Analytics, ONRR, at (303) 231-3511, or email to [email protected]; mailing address—Office of Natural Resources Revenue, P.O. Box 25165, MS 64310B, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.

    Reporting Information: Lee-Ann Martin, Program Manager, Reference & Reporting Management, ONRR, at (303) 231-3313, or email to [email protected]; mailing address—Office of Natural Resources Revenue, P.O. Box 25165, MS 63300B, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 10, 1999, ONRR's predecessor, the Minerals Management Service, published a final rule titled “Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases” effective January 1, 2000 (64 FR 43506). The gas valuation regulations apply to all gas production from Indian (Tribal or allotted) oil and gas leases, except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation.

    The regulations require ONRR to publish major portion prices for each designated area not associated with an index zone for each production month beginning January 2000, as well as the due date for additional royalty payments. See 30 CFR 1206.174(a)(4)(ii). If you owe additional royalties based on a published major portion price, you must submit to ONRR, by the due date, an amended form ONRR-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance. If you do not pay the additional royalties by the due date, ONRR will bill you late payment interest under 30 CFR 1218.54. The interest will accrue from the due date until ONRR receives your payment and an amended form ONRR-2014. The table below lists the major portion prices for all designated areas not associated with an index zone. The due date is the end of the month, following 60 days after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Gas Major Portion Prices ($/MMBtu) for Designated Areas not Associated With an Index Zone ONRR-designated areas Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 Blackfeet Reservation 1.28 1.25 1.06 1.01 Fort Belknap Reservation 4.15 4.24 3.94 1.10 Fort Berthold Reservation 1.90 1.84 1.27 1.33 Fort Peck Reservation 1.34 1.49 1.56 1.75 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 2.16 2.03 1.52 1.59 Turtle Mountain Reservation 1.93 1.87 1.25 1.32 ONRR-designated areas May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Blackfeet Reservation 1.02 1.13 1.48 1.01 Fort Belknap Reservation 1.26 1.38 1.56 1.55 Fort Berthold Reservation 1.48 1.51 2.25 2.16 Fort Peck Reservation 1.85 2.38 2.46 2.44 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 1.77 1.90 2.56 2.54 Turtle Mountain Reservation 1.45 1.49 2.29 2.20 ONRR-designated areas Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016 Blackfeet Reservation 1.66 1.96 1.69 2.16 Fort Belknap Reservation 1.64 1.79 1.68 1.91 Fort Berthold Reservation 2.32 2.53 2.31 2.78 Fort Peck Reservation 2.34 2.88 2.68 3.08 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 2.62 2.70 2.42 3.20 Turtle Mountain Reservation 2.36 2.48 2.31 2.65

    For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to our Dear Payor letter dated December 1, 1999, on the ONRR website at http://www.onrr.gov/ReportPay/PDFDocs/991201.pdf.

    Authorities:

    : Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.; Indian Mineral Development Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. 2103 et seq.; Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

    Gregory J. Gould, Director for Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15111 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2016-0001; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 189D0102R2] Withdrawal of Temporary Physical Address Change for General Ledger Team AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) is withdrawing the temporary physical address change published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 for courier services and personal deliveries.

    DATES:

    The cancellation takes effect on July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Darrel Redford, Supervisory Accountant, at (303) 231-3085, or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As of July 16, 2018, all courier services and deliveries should be made to ONRR, at the Denver Federal Center, Building 85, Entrance N-1, West 6th Ave. and Kipling St., Denver, Colorado 80225. Visitor parking is available in the north parking lot near Entrance N-1, which is the only entrance on the north side of Building 85. To request service, please use the courtesy phone and call Janet Giron at (303) 231-3088.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 1505.

    Gregory J. Gould, Director for Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15112 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2018-0004] Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf in the New York Bight—Call for Information and Nominations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 11, 2018, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a Call for Information and Nominations for Commercial Leasing for Wind Power on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the New York Bight (Call). BOEM invited the submission of information and nominations for commercial wind leases that would allow a lessee to propose the construction of a wind energy project in the New York Bight, and to develop one or more projects, if approved, after further environmental review. Additionally, the announcement requested comments and information from interested and affected parties about site conditions, resources, and multiple uses in close proximity to, or within, the Call Areas. Information received will help inform BOEM's identification of Wind Energy Areas, which would be further evaluated for potential commercial wind leasing. The April 11 notice had a comment period deadline of May 29, 2018. Several stakeholders have contacted BOEM and requested additional time to submit comments. BOEM agrees that it would be helpful in this instance to reopen the comment period.

    DATES:

    BOEM must receive nominations describing your interest in one or more, or any portion of, the Call Areas, by a postmarked date of July 30, 2018, for your nomination to be considered. BOEM requests comments or submissions of information to be postmarked or delivered by this same date. BOEM will consider only those nominations received during the comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you are submitting a nomination for a lease area in response to this Call, please submit your nomination by following the instructions in the “Required Nomination Information” section of the Call (83 FR 15602, 15617) to the following address: BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166. In addition to a paper copy of the nomination, include an electronic copy of the nomination on a data storage device. BOEM will list the parties that submitted nominations and the location of the proposed lease areas (i.e., OCS blocks nominated) on the BOEM website after the comment period has closed.

    Comments and other submissions of information may be submitted by either of the following two methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry entitled, “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter BOEM-2018-0004, and then click “search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related materials available for this notice.

    2. U.S. Postal Service or other delivery service. Send your comments and information to the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166.

    All responses will be reported on http://www.regulations.gov.

    If you wish to protect the confidentiality of your nominations or comments, clearly mark the relevant sections and request that BOEM treat them as confidential. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information,” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment. Treatment of confidential information is addressed in the section of this Call entitled, “Protection of Privileged or Confidential Information.” Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luke Feinberg, BOEM, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1705 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: This Call is published pursuant to subsection 8(p)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3), which was added by section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), as well as the implementing regulations at 30 CFR part 585.

    Background and Purpose: The OCS Lands Act requires BOEM to award leases competitively, unless BOEM makes a determination that there is no competitive interest (43 U.S.C. 1337(p)(3)). BOEM will make this determination after reviewing the nominations received in response to this Call. This Call also requests information from interested and affected parties on issues relevant to potential leasing within the Call Areas.

    The responses to this Call could lead to the initiation of a competitive leasing process in some parts of the Call Areas (i.e., where competition exists), and a noncompetitive process in other parts of the Call Areas (i.e., where no competitive interest exists). The Call, described in detail in the Federal Register (83 FR 15602 (April 11, 2018)), had an initial comment deadline of May 29, 2018, but several stakeholders have requested additional time to comment. BOEM agrees that it would be helpful in this instance to reopen the comment period until July 30, 2018.

    Protection of Privileged or Confidential Information: BOEM will protect privileged or confidential information that you submit as provided in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of FOIA applies to trade secrets and commercial or financial information that you submit that is privileged or confidential. If you wish to protect the confidentiality of such information, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information” and consider submitting such information as a separate attachment.

    BOEM will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information or comments not containing such information. Additionally, BOEM will not treat as confidential (1) the legal title of the nominating entity (for example, the name of your company), or (2) the list of whole or partial blocks that you are nominating. Information that is not labeled as privileged or confidential will be regarded by BOEM as suitable for public release.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Walter D. Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15133 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2018-0035] Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region-Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final notice of sale.

    SUMMARY:

    On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will open and publicly announce bids received for blocks offered in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region-wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 251 (GOM Region-wide Sale 251), in accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended, and the implementing regulations issued pursuant thereto. The GOM Region-wide Sale 251 Final Notice of Sale (NOS) package contains information essential to potential bidders.

    DATES:

    BOEM will hold GOM Region-wide Sale 251 at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 15, 2018. All times referred to in this document are Central Standard Time, unless otherwise specified.

    Bid submission deadline: BOEM accepts sealed bids between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on normal working days prior to the sale with the exception of Tuesday, August 14th, the day before the sale. BOEM must receive all bids for GOM Region-wide Sale 251 by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 14, 2018. For more information on bid submission, see Section VII, “Bidding Instructions,” of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Bids will be accepted prior to the bid receipt deadline at 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana. Public bid reading for GOM Region-wide Sale 251 will be held at 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana, but the venue will not be open to the general public, media, or industry during bid opening or reading. Bid opening will be available for public viewing on BOEM's website at www.boem.gov via live-streaming video beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the date of the sale. BOEM will also post the results on its website after bid opening and reading are completed. Interested parties may download the Final NOS package from BOEM's website at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-251/. Copies of the sale maps may be obtained by contacting the BOEM GOM Region at: Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, (504) 736-2519 or (800) 200-GULF.

    For more information on bid submission, see Section VII, “Bidding Instructions,” of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ann Glazner, Deputy Regional Supervisor, Office of Leasing and Plans, 504-736-2607, [email protected] or Wright Jay Frank, Acting Chief, Leasing Policy and Management Division, 703-787-1325, [email protected]

    Table of Contents

    This Final NOS includes the following sections:

    I. Lease Sale Area II. Statutes and Regulations III. Lease Terms and Economic Conditions IV. Lease Stipulations V. Information to Lessees VI. Maps VII. Bidding Instructions VIII. Bidding Rules and Restrictions IX. Forms X. The Lease Sale XI. Delay of Sale I. Lease Sale Area

    Blocks Offered for Leasing: BOEM will offer for bid in this lease sale all of the available unleased acreage in the GOM, except those blocks listed in “Blocks Not Offered for Leasing” below.

    Blocks Not Offered for Leasing: The following whole, segregated, and partial blocks are not offered for lease in this sale. The BOEM Official Protraction Diagrams (OPDs) and Supplemental Official Block Diagrams are available online at https://www.boem.gov/Maps-and-GIS-Data/.

    Whole and partial blocks that lie within the current boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (in the East and West Flower Garden Banks and the Stetson Bank), identified in the following list:

    High Island, East Addition, South Extension (Leasing Map TX7C) Whole Block: A-398 Partial Blocks: A-366, A-367, A-374, A-375, A-383, A-384, A-385, A-388, A-389, A-397, A-399, A-401 High Island, South Addition (Leasing Map TX7B) Partial Blocks: A-502, A-513 Garden Banks (OPD NG15-02) Partial Blocks: 134, 135

    Blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap:

    Lund South (OPD NG 16-07) Whole Blocks: 128, 129, 169 through 173, 208 through 217, 248 through 261, 293 through 305, and 349 Henderson (OPD NG 16-05) Whole Blocks: 466, 508 through 510, 551 through 554, 594 through 599, 637 through 643, 679 through 687, 722 through 731, 764 through 775, 807 through 819, 849 through 862, 891 through 905, 933 through 949, and 975 through 992 Partial Blocks: 467, 511, 555, 556, 600, 644, 688, 732, 776, 777, 820, 821, 863, 864, 906, 907, 950, 993, and 994 Florida Plain (OPD NG 16-08) Whole Blocks: 5 through 24, 46 through 67, 89 through 110, 133 through 154, 177 through 197, 221 through 240, 265 through 283, 309 through 327, and 363 through 370

    All whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432:

    Pensacola (OPD NH 16-05) Whole Blocks: 751 through 754, 793 through 798, 837 through 842, 881 through 886, 925 through 930, and 969 through 975 Destin Dome (OPD NH 16-08) Whole Blocks: 1 through 7, 45 through 51, 89 through 96, 133 through 140, 177 through 184, 221 through 228, 265 through 273, 309 through 317, 353 through 361, 397 through 405, 441 through 450, 485 through 494, 529 through 538, 573 through 582, 617 through 627, 661 through 671, 705 through 715, 749 through 759, 793 through 804, 837 through 848, 881 through 892, 925 through 936, and 969 through 981 DeSoto Canyon (OPD NH 16-11) Whole Blocks: 1 through 15, 45 through 59, and 92 through 102 Partial Blocks: 16, 60, 61, 89 through 91, 103 through 105, and 135 through 147 Henderson (OPD NG 16-05) Partial Blocks: 114, 158, 202, 246, 290, 334, 335, 378, 379, 422, and 423

    Depth restricted, segregated block portion(s):

    Block 299, Main Pass Area, South and East Addition (Louisiana Leasing Map LA10A), containing 1,125 acres, from the surface of the earth down to a subsea depth of 1,900 feet with respect to the following described portions:

    SW1/4NE1/4; NW1/4SE1/4NE1/4; W1/2NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4; S1/2S1/2NW1/4NE1/4; S1/2SW1/4NE1/4NE1/4; S1/2SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4; N1/2SW1/4SE1/4 NE1/4; SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4; NW1/4SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4; N1/2NW1/4SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4; N1/2SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4; N1/2S1/2SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NE1/4; S1/2NE1/4NW1/4; S1/2S1/2N1/2NE1/4NW1/4; N1/2SE1/4NW1/4; S1/2SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4; E1/2NE1/4SW1/4NW1/4; N1/2SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4; NE1/4SW1/4SE1/4NW1/4; N1/2NW1/4SW1/4SE1/4NW1/4; SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4; E1/2SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4; N1/2NW1/4NE1/4SW1/4NW1/4; N1/2S1/2NW1/4NE1/4SW1/4NW1/4; N1/2N1/2NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4SW1/4; N1/2N1/2N1/2NW1/4NW1/4SE1/4; N1/2N1/2NW1/4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4.

    The following blocks, whose lease status is currently under appeal:

    Keathley Canyon (Leasing Map NG15-05) Blocks 290, 291, and 292 Keathley Canyon (Leasing Map NG15-05) Blocks 246 and 247 Keathley Canyon (Leasing Map NG15-05) Blocks 335 and 336 Vermilion Area (Leasing Map LA3) Partial Block 179 II. Statutes and Regulations

    Each lease is issued pursuant to OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, as amended, and is subject to OCSLA implementing regulations promulgated pursuant thereto in 30 CFR part 556, and other applicable statutes and regulations in existence upon the effective date of the lease. Each lease is also subject to those applicable statutes enacted and regulations promulgated thereafter, except to the extent that the after-enacted statutes and regulations explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. Additionally, each lease is subject to amendments to statutes and regulations, including but not limited to OCSLA, that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. The lessee expressly bears the risk that such new or amended statutes and regulations (i.e., those that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease) may increase or decrease the lessee's obligations under the lease.

    III. Lease Terms and Economic Conditions Lease Terms OCS Lease Form

    BOEM will use Form BOEM-2005 (February 2017) to convey leases resulting from this sale. This lease form may be viewed on BOEM's website at http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-2005. The lease form will be amended to conform with the specific terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to the individual lease. The terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to this sale are set forth below.

    Primary Term

    Primary Terms are summarized in the following table:

    Water depth
  • (meters)
  • Primary term
    0 to <400 The primary term is five years; the lessee may earn an additional three years (i.e., for an eight-year extended primary term) if a well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet True Vertical Depth Subsea (TVDSS) during the first five years of the lease. 400 to <800 The primary term is five years; the lessee will earn an additional three years (i.e., for an eight-year extended primary term) if a well is spudded during the first five years of the lease. 800 to <1,600 The primary term is seven years; the lessee will earn an additional three years (i.e., for a ten-year extended primary term) if a well is spudded during the first seven years of the lease. 1,600+ Ten years.

    (1) The primary term for a lease in water depths less than 400 meters issued as a result of this sale is five years. If the lessee spuds a well targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVDSS within the first five years of the lease, then the lessee may earn an additional three years, resulting in an eight-year primary term. The lessee will earn the eight-year primary term when the well is drilled to a target below 25,000 feet TVDSS, or the lessee may earn the eight-year primary term in cases where the well targets, but does not reach, a depth below 25,000 feet TVDSS due to mechanical or safety reasons, where sufficient evidence is provided that it did not reach that target for reasons beyond the lessee's control.

    In order to earn the eight-year extended primary term, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no instance more than 30 days after completion of the drilling operation, a letter providing the well number, spud date, information demonstrating a target below 25,000 feet TVDSS and whether that target was reached, and if applicable, any safety, mechanical, or other problems encountered that prevented the well from reaching a depth below 25,000 feet TVDSS. This letter must request confirmation that the lessee earned the eight-year primary term. The BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will confirm in writing, within 30 days of receiving the lessee's letter, whether the lessee has earned the extended primary term and update BOEM records accordingly. The extended primary term is not effective unless and until the lessee receives confirmation from BOEM.

    A lessee that has earned the eight-year primary term by spudding a well with a hydrocarbon target below 25,000 feet TVDSS during the standard five-year primary term of the lease will not be granted a suspension for that same period under the regulations at 30 CFR 250.175 because the lease is not at risk of expiring.

    (2) The primary term for a lease in water depths ranging from 400 to less than 800 meters issued as a result of this sale is five years. If the lessee spuds a well within the five-year primary term of the lease, the lessee will earn an additional three years, resulting in an eight-year primary term.

    In order to earn the eight-year primary term, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no instance more than 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation that the lessee earned the eight-year extended primary term. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will provide writt