Federal Register Vol. 83, No.137,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 137 (July 17, 2018)

Page Range33119-33794
FR Document

83_FR_137
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 33218 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 33256 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 33276 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
83 FR 33257 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
83 FR 33291 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Waste Management Holdings, Inc.; Application for ExemptionPDF
83 FR 33295 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
83 FR 33297 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
83 FR 33292 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
83 FR 33167 - Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged-Supplement Not Supplant; WithdrawalPDF
83 FR 33287 - Notice of Renewal of the Charter of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC)PDF
83 FR 33308 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of MeetingsPDF
83 FR 33215 - South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
83 FR 33217 - Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments: South Carolina Electric & Gas CompanyPDF
83 FR 33234 - Agency Information Collection Activities: General DeclarationPDF
83 FR 33233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Transfer of Cargo to a Container StationPDF
83 FR 33124 - Special Local Regulations; Annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show; Hessel, MIPDF
83 FR 33119 - Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer ManualPDF
83 FR 33177 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33186 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33182 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davis Timber Company Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33171 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33176 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33134 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 33122 - Special Local Regulation; Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show, Grand Haven, MIPDF
83 FR 33255 - Cumulative Report of Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974PDF
83 FR 33210 - International Whaling Commission; 67th Meeting; Announcement of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 33222 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 33121 - Special Local Regulations: Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound ZonePDF
83 FR 33221 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Classified Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 56: Classified ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 33287 - Notice of Public Meeting: National Dialogue on Highway AutomationPDF
83 FR 33288 - Proposed Guidance on Safe Harbor Rate Streamlining for Engineering and Design Services Consultant ContractsPDF
83 FR 33193 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and VegetablesPDF
83 FR 33194 - Information Collection: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection SystemsPDF
83 FR 33231 - Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS); Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 33212 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 33195 - Steel Racks From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
83 FR 33201 - Certain Steel Racks From the People's Republic: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
83 FR 33238 - Massachusetts; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 33249 - Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision on the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan for Two Salamander Species in Travis and Hays Counties, TexasPDF
83 FR 33250 - Clad Steel Plate From Japan; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
83 FR 33225 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33237 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)-Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Reporting ToolPDF
83 FR 33239 - Alaska; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 33252 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal MinesPDF
83 FR 33254 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal MinesPDF
83 FR 33247 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant StatusPDF
83 FR 33248 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition To Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household; Supplement 2, Consent To Disclose InformationPDF
83 FR 33239 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 33306 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping RequirementsPDF
83 FR 33235 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 33304 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
83 FR 33305 - Drugs that Impair Safe Driving; Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 33251 - 192nd Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 33220 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Port Arthur Refinery, Jefferson County, TexasPDF
83 FR 33219 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal AgenciesPDF
83 FR 33195 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
83 FR 33216 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLCPDF
83 FR 33217 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 33216 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
83 FR 33219 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 33209 - Endangered Species; File Nos. 18238, 21327 and 22123PDF
83 FR 33225 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on AgingPDF
83 FR 33210 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance ApplicantsPDF
83 FR 33208 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Expenditure Survey of Golden Crab Fishermen in the U.S. South Atlantic RegionPDF
83 FR 33231 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 33230 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 33227 - Agency Information Collection Request; 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33228 - Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33226 - Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33192 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33165 - Safety Zone, S99 Alford Street Bridge-Emergency Grid Replacement Project, Mystic River, Charlestown and Everett, MAPDF
83 FR 33127 - Safety Zone; Yankee Air Museum's Fundraiser Air Demonstration, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MIPDF
83 FR 33232 - Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs DutiesPDF
83 FR 33277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the First Trust Senior Loan Fund of First Trust Exchange Traded Fund IVPDF
83 FR 33146 - Cost Accounting Standards: Revision of the Exemption From Cost Accounting Standards for Contracts and Subcontracts for the Acquisition of Commercial ItemsPDF
83 FR 33285 - TriLine Index Solutions, LLC and ETF Series SolutionsPDF
83 FR 33286 - SL Advisors, LLC and ETF Series SolutionsPDF
83 FR 33244 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001, and Instructions)PDF
83 FR 33139 - Connect America Fund, Connect America Fund-Alaska PlanPDF
83 FR 33244 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
83 FR 33223 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 33255 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
83 FR 33256 - Meeting of Humanities PanelPDF
83 FR 33165 - Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically); CorrectionPDF
83 FR 33129 - Removal of Rules Governing Trademark InterferencesPDF
83 FR 33211 - BroadbandUSA Webinar SeriesPDF
83 FR 33125 - Special Local Regulation; 2018 Detroit Hydrofest, Detroit River, Detroit, MIPDF
83 FR 33143 - Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications RegulationsPDF
83 FR 33144 - Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television StandardPDF
83 FR 33221 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
83 FR 33163 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, MEPDF
83 FR 33132 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and II Vapor Recovery RequirementsPDF
83 FR 33168 - Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Revisions to VOC Definitions and Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
83 FR 33730 - Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; 2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP RequirementsPDF
83 FR 33762 - Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor ProgramPDF
83 FR 33222 - Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
83 FR 33223 - Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
83 FR 33608 - Request for Comments Concerning Proposed Modification of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and InnovationPDF
83 FR 33205 - Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
83 FR 33148 - Atlantic Highly Migratory SpeciesPDF
83 FR 33263 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
83 FR 33162 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 33312 - Enterprise Capital RequirementsPDF
83 FR 33257 - State of Wyoming: NRC Staff Assessment of a Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of WyomingPDF
83 FR 33140 - Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized ChargesPDF
83 FR 33159 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
83 FR 33432 - Proposed Revisions to Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity FundsPDF

Issue

83 137 Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33192-33193 2018-15162 2018-15184
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables, 33193-33194 2018-15230 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Petitions to Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure Cohort, 33222-33223 2018-15093 2018-15094 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33223-33225 2018-15169 2018-15220 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Yankee Air Museum's Fundraiser Air Demonstration, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI, 33127-33129 2018-15182 Special Local Regulations: 2018 Detroit Hydrofest, Detroit River, Detroit, MI, 33125-33127 2018-15159 Annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show; Hessel, MI, 33124-33125 2018-15248 Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show, Grand Haven, MI, 33122-33123 2018-15239 Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone, 33121-33122 2018-15235 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: S99 Alford Street Bridge—Emergency Grid Replacement Project, Mystic River, Charlestown and Everett, MA, 33165-33167 2018-15183 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Award of a Single-Source Supplement: National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, 33225-33226 2018-15194 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Petitions, 33195 2018-15203 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—Supplement Not Supplant; Withdrawal, 33167-33168 2018-15259 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, 33251-33252 2018-15207 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Kentucky; 2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport SIP Requirements, 33730-33760 2018-15143 Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements, 33132-33134 2018-15148 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund Site, 33134-33139 2018-15240 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Revisions to VOC Definitions and Ambient Air Quality Standards, 33168-33171 2018-15147 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davis Timber Company Superfund Site, 33182-33186 2018-15243 Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site, 33177-33182 2018-15245 Deletion of the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site, 33186-33191 2018-15244 Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site, 33171-33176 2018-15242 Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund Site, 33176 2018-15241 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies, 33219-33220 2018-15204 Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Port Arthur Refinery, Jefferson County, TX, 33220-33221 2018-15205 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Exposure Draft of a Classified Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56: Classified Activities, 33221 2018-15234 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 33159-33162 2018-13781 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 33162-33163 2018-14398 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Belfast, ME, 33163-33164 2018-15153 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Authorizing Permissive Use of the Next Generation Broadcast Television Standard, 33144-33146 2018-15156 Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan, 33139-33140 2018-15171 Payphone Compensation: Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act; Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, 33143-33144 2018-15157 Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, 33140-33143 2018-14151 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33221-33222 2018-15155 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment—Stakeholder Preparedness Review Reporting Tool, 33237-33238 2018-15219 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 33235-33237, 33239-33244 2018-15211 2018-15213 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Alaska, 33239 2018-15218 Massachusetts, 33238-33239 2018-15223 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., 33215-33216 2018-15256 Combined Filings, 33216-33219 2018-15197 2018-15198 2018-15199 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC, 33216 2018-15200 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33218-33219 2018-15318 Settlement Agreements: South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., 33217 2018-15255 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Guidance: Safe Harbor Rate Streamlining for Engineering and Design Services Consultant Contracts, 33288-33290 2018-15231 Meetings: National Dialogue on Highway Automation, 33287-33288 2018-15232 Federal Housing Enterprise Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office PROPOSED RULES Enterprise Capital Requirements, 33312-33430 2018-14255 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency PROPOSED RULES Enterprise Capital Requirements, 33312-33430 2018-14255 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Waste Management Holdings, Inc., 33291-33292 2018-15264 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 33295-33297 2018-15263 Diabetes Mellitus, 33297-33304 2018-15262 Vision, 33292-33295 2018-15261 Federal Procurement Federal Procurement Policy Office RULES Cost Accounting Standards: Revision of the Exemption from Cost Accounting Standards for Contracts and Subcontracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Items, 33146-33148 2018-15176 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 33432-33605 2018-13502 NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 33222 2018-15236 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan for Two Salamander Species in Travis and Hays Counties, TX, 33249-33250 2018-15222 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems, 33194-33195 2018-15228 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33226-33230 2018-15185 2018-15186 2018-15187
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

See

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33244 2018-15170 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Case Assistance Form, 33244-33246 2018-15172
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department See

Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically); Correction, 33165 2018-15164 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Steel Racks from the People's Republic, 33201-33205 2018-15224 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 33205-33208 2018-14925 Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations: Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China, 33195-33201 2018-15225 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Clad Steel Plate from Japan, 33250-33251 2018-15221 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Management Management and Budget Office See

Federal Procurement Policy Office

NOTICES Cumulative Report of Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, 33255 2018-15238
Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines, 33254-33255 2018-15216 Ventilation Plans, Tests, and Examinations in Underground Coal Mines, 33252-33254 2018-15217 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 33255 2018-15166 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 33256 2018-15165 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 33304-33308 2018-15210 2018-15212 Drugs that Impair Safe Driving, 33305-33306 2018-15209 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 33230-33231 2018-15188 2018-15189 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 33231 2018-15190 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species, 33148-33158 2018-14916 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Economic Expenditure Survey of Golden Crab Fishermen in the U.S. South Atlantic Region, 33208-33209 2018-15191 Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants, 33210-33211 2018-15192 Meetings: International Whaling Commission, 33210 2018-15237 Permits: Endangered Species; File Nos. 18238, 21327 and 22123, 33209-33210 2018-15196 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: BroadbandUSA Webinar Series, 33211-33212 2018-15160 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33256-33257 2018-15314 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 33212-33214 2018-15226 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc.; Biweekly Notice, 33263-33276 2018-14779 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33257 2018-15286 Staff Assessments of Proposed Agreements: Wyoming, 33257-33263 2018-14176 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES Removal of Rules Governing Trademark Interferences, 33129-33132 2018-15163 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual, 33119-33121 2018-15247 PROPOSED RULES Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 33432-33605 2018-13502 NOTICES Applications: SL Advisors, LLC and ETF Series Solutions, 33286-33287 2018-15173 TriLine Index Solutions, LLC and ETF Series Solutions, 33285-33286 2018-15174 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 33276-33277 2018-15292 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 33277-33285 2018-15177 State Department State Department NOTICES Charter Renewals: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 33287 2018-15258 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Women's Services, 33231-33232 2018-15227 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Proposed Modification of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 33608-33728 2018-15090 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, 33247 2018-15215 Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household; Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information, 33248-33249 2018-15214 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: General Declaration, 33234-33235 2018-15250 Transfer of Cargo to a Container Station, 33233-33234 2018-15249 Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs Duties, 33232-33233 2018-15179 Immigration U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement PROPOSED RULES Adjusting Program Fees for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, 33762-33794 2018-15140 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board, 33308-33309 2018-15257 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Housing Finance Agency, 33312-33430 2018-14255 Housing and Urban Development Department, Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office, 33312-33430 2018-14255 Part III Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Federal Reserve System, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Securities and Exchange Commission, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Treasury Department, Comptroller of the Currency, 33432-33605 2018-13502 Part IV Trade Representative, Office of United States, 33608-33728 2018-15090 Part V Environmental Protection Agency, 33730-33760 2018-15143 Part VI Homeland Security Department, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 33762-33794 2018-15140 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.

83 137 Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Rules and Regulations SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 232 [Release Nos. 33-10518; 34-83614; 39-2521; IC-33153] Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (“EDGAR”) Filer Manual and related rules. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded on July 9, 2018.

DATES:

Effective July 17, 2018. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

In the Division of Investment Management, for questions concerning Forms N-CSR or N-CSRS, contact Heather Fernandez at (202) 551-6708. In the Division of Trading and Markets, for questions concerning Form Funding Portal, contact Timothy White at (202) 551-7232. In the Office of Municipal Securities, for questions regarding Forms MA and MA-I, contact Ahmed A. Abonamah at (202) 551-3887. In the Division of Corporation Finance, for questions concerning the Form ABS-15G, Form C, and Form D, contact Heather Mackintosh at (202) 551-8111. In the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, for questions concerning retired taxonomies and the updated 2018 IFRS taxonomy, contact Brian Hankin at (202) 551-8497.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.1 It also describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink Online and the Online Forms/XML website.

1 We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993, with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April 1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. We implemented the most recent update to the Filer Manual on April 25, 2018. See Release No. 33-10486 (April 25, 2018) [83 FR 22190].

The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume II, entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 47 (July 2018). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format.2 Filers should consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for electronic submission.

2See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).

The EDGAR System and Filer Manual will be updated in Release 18.2 and will reflect the changes described below.

Release No. 33-10486 amended Forms Funding Portal, Form MA, Form MA-I, and Form MSD to eliminate the portions of such forms that requested filers furnish certain sensitive personally identifiable information (“PII”) of natural persons, including Social Security numbers, foreign identity numbers, dates of birth, and places of birth.3 In Release 18.2, the EDGAR filer interface will be revised to include new “pop-up” messages, which will warn filers not to provide such sensitive PII. These changes further support the revisions to the aforementioned forms. Pop-up messages will also instruct filers on how to complete the required fields using a numeric placeholder or CRD number placeholder in lieu of certain sensitive PII in specified fields on submission form types MA, MA-A, MA/A, MA-I, and MA-I/A and on the Form Funding Portal landing page. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

3See Release No. 33-10486.

EDGAR will be revised to add the new exhibit “EX-99. IND PUB ACCT (Change of Independent Public Accountant)” for submission form types N-CSR, N-CSR/A, N-CSRS and N-CSRS/A. The new exhibit will allow registrants to report a change in their independent public accountant. Corresponding changes have been made to Appendix E (Automated Conformance Rules for EDGAR Data Fields) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

EDGAR will be revised to update submission form types ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A to remove “Issuing Entity Name” for the Registered Entity field in Items 2.01 and 2.02 and to remove “Issuing Entity CIK” from the Unregistered Entity field in Item 2.01 and from the Unregistered Entity under Rule 15Ga-2 field in Item 2.02. The revisions are designed to improve validation of filer identification header tag information by removing unnecessary header tag fields associated with these submission types. For further information, please see the “EDGARLink Online XML Technical Specification document” available on the SEC's public website at https://www.sec.gov/oit/Article/info-edgar-tech-specs.html. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 7 (Preparing and Transmitting EDGARLink Online Submissions) and Appendix A (Messages Reported by EDGAR) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

EDGAR will be revised to update submission form types C, C/A, C-AR, C-AR/A, and C-TR to provide filers with an error message if they do not adhere to the EDGAR file naming standards specified in Chapter 5 (Constructing Attached Documents and Document Types) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II. In addition, submission form types C, C/A, C-A, C-AR, C-AR/A and C-U will be updated to allow filers to input a decimal value in the “Current Employees” field to denote any part-time employees. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

EDGAR will be revised to update submission form types D and D/A to increase the character limits from 150 to 200 characters for the following fields: “Last Name” under Item 3: Related Persons; “Recipient” under Item 12: Sales Compensation; and “(Associated) Broker or Dealer” under Item 12: Sales Compensation. For further information, please see the “EDGAR Form D XML Technical Specification” document available on the SEC's public website at https://www.sec.gov/oit/Article/info-edgar-tech-specs.html. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

The EDGAR system will be updated to remove, and will no longer accept, the following submission form types: F-9, F-9/A, F-9POS, F-9EF, N-MFP, N-MFP/A, N-MFP1, N-MFP1/A, 497K1, 497K2, 497K3A, and 497K3B. These submission types either allow for filing of forms that have been rescinded by prior Commission action, or have been replaced by newer submission form types and are now obsolete. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 2 (Quick Guide to EDGAR Filing), Chapter 3 (Index to Forms), Chapter 4 (Filing Fee Information), Chapter 6 (Interactive Data), Chapter 8 (Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions), and Appendix C (EDGAR Submission Types) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to remove the following taxonomies, which have been superseded: US-GAAP-2016, DEI-2013, DEI-2009, EXCH-2016, and RR-2010. The EDGAR system will be updated to reflect the 2018 version of the IFRS taxonomy. For further information please refer to the SEC's public website at https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.shtml.

Chapter 5 (Constructing Attached Documents and Document Types) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II will be updated to provide clarifying instructions regarding the use of, and submission requirements for, PDF documents for specified submission form types. The EDGAR Filer Manual will also be revised to make clarifying changes to certain instructions by removing references to an application tool used to read XBRL data. The tool is no longer supported on sec.gov. Finally, the EDGAR Filer Manual will include revised instructions that clarify how filers may report shares outstanding for multiple classes of stock for XBRL validation. Corresponding changes have been made to Chapter 6 (Interactive Data) of the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II.

Along with the adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for website viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edmanuals.htm. You may also obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule and form amendments relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).4 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 do not apply.

4 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

5 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the related rule and form amendments is July 17, 2018. In accordance with the APA,6 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with these system upgrades.

6 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Statutory Basis

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under the authority in Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,7 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15B, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,8 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,9 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.10

7 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).

8 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-4, 78w, and 78ll.

9 15 U.S.C. 77sss.

10 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendments

In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 232 REGULATION S-T—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-7, 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows:
§ 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual.

Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets forth the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 30 (March 2018). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 47 (July 2018).

Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: “N-SAR Supplement,” Version 6 (January 2017). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for website viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edmanuals.htm. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. You can also inspect the document at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

By the Commission.

Dated: July 10, 2018. Lynn M. Powalski, Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15247 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2012-1036] Special Local Regulations: Recurring Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce five special local regulations for marine events in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on the dates and times listed in the table below. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the events. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulation in 33 CFR 100.100, Table to § 100.100 will be enforced for the following safety zones identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section during the dates and times specified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Chief Petty Officer Katherine Linnick, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4565, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.100 Table 1 on the specified dates and times as indicated below.

7.6 Aquapalooza, Zach's Bay • Date: July 22, 2018.
  • • Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All navigable waters of Zach's Bay, Wantagh, NY south of the line connecting a point near the western entrance to Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′29.20″ N, 073°29′22.88″ W and a point near the eastern entrance of Zach's Bay in approximate position 40°36′16.53″ N, 073°28′57.26″ W.
  • • Additional stipulations: During the enforcement period vessel speed in the regulated area is restricted to no wake speed or 6 knots, whichever is slower. On the day of the event from 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. vessels may only transit the regulated area in the northbound direction or outbound direction.
  • 8.1 Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival • Date: August 18, 2018.
  • • Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Connecticut River in Hartford, CT between the Bulkeley Bridge at 41°46′10.10″ N, 072°39′56.13″ W and the Wilbur Cross Bridge at 41°45′11.67″ N, 072°39′13.64″ W (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8.2 Swim Across the Sound • Date: August 4, 2018.
  • • Time: 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
  • • Location: Waters of Long Island Sound from Port Jefferson, NY in approximate position 40°58′11.71″ N, 073°05′51.12″ W; then northwest to Captain's Cove Seaport, Bridgeport, CT in approximate position 41°09′25.07″ N, 073°12′47.82″ W (NAD 83). 8.4 Island Beach Two Mile Swim • Date: August 4, 2018.
  • • Time: 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Captain Harbor between Little Captain's Island and Bower's Island that are located within the box formed by connecting four points in the following positions. Beginning at 40°59′23.35″ N, 073°36′42.05″ W; then northwest to 40°59′51.04″ N, 073°37′57.32″ W; then southwest to 40°59′45.17″ N, 073°38′01.18″ W; then southeast to 40°59′17.38″ N, 073°36′45.9″ W; then northeast to the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate. 8.6 Smith Point Triathlon • Date: August 5, 2018.
  • • Time: 6:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Narrow Bay near Smith Point Park in Mastic Beach, NY within the area bounded by land along its southern edge and points in position at 40°44′14.28″ N, 072°51′40.68″ W; then north to a point at position 40°44′20.83″ N, 072°51′40.68″ W; then east to a point at position 40°44′20.83″ N, 072°51′19.73″ W; then south to a point at position 40°44′14.85″ N, 072°51′19.73″ W; and then southwest along the shoreline back to the point of origin (NAD 83). All positions are approximate.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.100, the events listed above are established as special local regulations. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these regulated areas unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 100 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 14, 2018. K.B. Reed, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15235 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0267] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show, Grand Haven, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is amending a special local regulation for certain waters of the Grand River at Waterfront Stadium in Grand Haven, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters to be used for a waterski show. This action will prohibit persons or vessels from entering certain waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the marine event. This special local regulation is needed to protect spectators, personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the Grand Haven Waterski Show.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 7 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0267 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this temporary rule, call or email marine event coordinator MSTC Kaleena Carpino, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI; telephone (414) 747-7148, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because The Grand Haven Waterski show is an annual event codified in 33 CFR 100.906. The coordinates listed therein are not accurate for this year's event, and final details for the event were not received in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that the combination of recreational vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to the waterski show pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Specific hazards include collisions among event participants, collisions between participants and recreational traffic, and other traffic that may cause injury or marine casualties. Therefore, the COTP is amending a Special Local Regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property to persons, vessels, and the marine environment during this event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. on July 31, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine environment. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters within the following coordinates: 43°04′5 N, 086°14′12.4″ W; then east to 43°04′2″ N, 086°14′1″ W; then south to 43°03′45″ N, 086°14′10″ W; then west to 43°03′48″ N, 086°14′17″ W; then back to the point of origin. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16, or at (404) 747-7182.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation. The event is in the evening hours, and will last for a maximum of 2 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation, and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit transit of the Grand River, in Grand Haven, MI in front of the Waterfront Stadium. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Waterways.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Revise § 100.906 to read as follows:
    § 100.906 Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show, Grand Haven, MI.

    (a) Regulated area. All waters of the Grand River in front of Waterfront Stadium from approximately 500 yards upriver to 150 yards downriver of Grand River Lighted Buoy 3A (Light list number 19000) within the following coordinates: 43°04′5 N, 086°14′12.4″ W; then east to 43°04′2″ N, 086°14′1″ W; then south to 43°03′45″ N, 086°14′10″ W; then west to 43°03′48″ N, 086°14′17″ W; then back to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (b) Special local regulations. The regulations of § 100.901 apply. No vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

    (c) Effective date. These regulations are effective and will be enforced from 7 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 31, 2018. The time and date for this event is subject to change. In the event of a schedule change, the Coast Guard will issue a Notice of Enforcement with the exact date and time that this regulated area will be enforced.

    Dated: June 8, 2018. Thomas J. Stuhlreyer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15239 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0580] RIN 100-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show; Hessel, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is adding a special local regulation to increase safety in the navigable waters of Marquette Bay, Hessel, MI during the annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show held annually in mid-August. The regulation will add a no wake zone to be enforced in the area around the show from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 11th, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov type USCG-2018-0580 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Steven Durden, Waterways Management, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-635-3222, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Les Cheneaux Antique Wooden Boat Show was founded in 1978 and the event is held every year in mid-August. During this event, a variety of vessel traffic is attracted to the area in and surrounding the Hessel Marina. A commercial ferry vessel, jet skis, kayaks, paddle boards, sail and power vessels all use this this waterway to view the show and to transit the area. This mix of vessels in close proximity to each other warrants additional safety measures. In response, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 18th, 2018. There, we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this no wake zone. During the comment period that ended July 9th, 2018, we received no comments.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to provide for the public's safety during the August 11th, 2018 Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show.

    The legal basis for this final rulemaking is found at 33 U.S.C. 1233.

    III. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Rule

    We received no comments from the NPRM published June 18th, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM. The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that adding the Annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show to the list of Special Local Regulations to establish a no wake zone in the navigable waters of Marquette Bay near Hessel, MI is necessary to ensure the safety of the boating public.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day for the no wake zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit through the no wake zone which will impact a small designated area within the COTP zone for a short duration of time. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the no wake zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves creating a no wake zone for one day each year in a small area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.922 to read as follows:
    § 100.922 Special Local Regulations; Annual Les Cheneaux Islands Antique Wooden Boat Show; Hessel, MI.

    (a) Regulated area. These Special Local Regulations apply to all U.S. navigable waters of Marquette Bay, Hessel, MI, within an area bordered by a line from the crib piles charted in position 45°59′59″ N, 084°25′10″ W to Red Buoy “8” charted in position 45°59′46″ N, 084°25′37″ W to Red Buoy “6” charted in position 45°59′58″ N, 084°25′53″ W to Red Buoy “4” charted in position 45°59′57″ N, 084°26′23″ W to Green Buoy “5” charted in position 46°00′13″ N, 084°26′10″ W to land in position 46°00′18″ N, 084°26′04″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. These special local regulations are effective for one day in mid-August. The Coast Guard will issue a notice of enforcement with the exact time and date this regulated area will be enforced.

    (c) Special local regulation. While in the regulated area all vessels will operate at a no wake speed and follow the directions of the on-scene patrol commander.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. M.R. Broz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15248 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0673] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; 2018 Detroit Hydrofest, Detroit River, Detroit, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain navigable waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This action is necessary and is intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the 2018 Detroit Hydrofest boat races.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. on August 24, 2018, through 7 p.m. on August 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0673 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone (313) 568-9564, or email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of the boat races in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and an unknown number of spectators in close proximity to a high speed boat race along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a special local regulation around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7 a.m. on August 24, 2018 until 7 p.m. August 26, 2018. The regulation will be enforced from 12 p.m. until 7 p.m. on August 24, 2018, and from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. on August 25 and August 26, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass all U.S. waters of the Detroit River in Scott Middle Ground, north of Belle Isle, Michigan, starting at positions 42°20.506′ N 083°00.016′ W on the Douglas MacArthur Bridge; extending east to the Belle Isle Crib Light at 42°21.205′ N 082°57.996′ W (NAD 83).

    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the special regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The Captain of the Port Detroit or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (313) 568-9560. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7 a.m. on August 24, 2018 until 7 p.m. on August 26, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting 3 days that will prohibit entry into a designated area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.T09-0673 to read as follows:
    § 100.T09-0673 Special Local Regulation; 2018 Detroit Hydrofest, Detroit River, Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. The special local regulation will encompass all U.S. waters of the Detroit River in Scott Middle Ground, north of Belle Isle, Michigan, starting at positions 42°20.506′ N 083°00.016′ W on the Douglas MacArthur Bridge; extending east to the Belle Isle Crib Light at 42°21.205′ N 082°57.996′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. A temporary special local is in effect from 7 a.m. on August 24, 2018 until 7 p.m. August 26, 2018. The regulation will be enforced from 12 p.m. until 7 p.m. on August 24, 2018, and from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. on August 25 and August 26, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessels or person may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated navigation area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his on-scene representative.

    (2) The regulated area is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.

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

    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the regulated area. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 10, 2018. Kevin D. Floyd, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15159 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0690] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Yankee Air Museum's Fundraiser Air Demonstration, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters in the vicinity of Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Yankee Air Museum's Fundraiser Air Demonstration.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 8 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. July 18, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0690 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9564, or email [email protected]

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this air demonstration in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that an aircraft aerial display proximate to a gathering of watercraft poses a significant risk to public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the air demonstration is being displayed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. July 18, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair with in the following corner points: Northeast corner, 42°24.670′ N, 082°51.594′ W, Northwest corner 42°24.671′ N, 082°51.368′ W, Southeast corner 42°24.034′ N, 082°51.857′ W, Southwest corner 42°24.023′ N, 082°51.626′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of Lake St. Clair for no more than thirty minutes. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0690 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0690 Yankee Air Museum's Fundraiser Air Demonstration, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of Lake St. Clair within the following corner points: Northeast corner, 42°24.670′ N, 082°51.594′ W, Northwest corner 42°24.671′ N, 082°51.368′ W, Southeast corner 42°24.034′ N, 082°51.857′ W, Southwest corner 42°24.023′ N, 082°51.626′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be enforced 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on July 18, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Kevin D. Floyd, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15182 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. PTO-T-2017-0032] RIN 0651-AD23 Removal of Rules Governing Trademark Interferences AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) amends the Rules of Practice in Trademark Cases to remove the rules governing trademark interferences. This rule arises out of the USPTO's work during FY 2017 to identify and propose regulations for removal, modification, and streamlining because they are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, costly, or unduly burdensome on the agency or the private sector. The revisions put into effect the work the USPTO has done, in part through its participation in the Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force) established by the Department of Commerce (Department or Commerce) pursuant to Executive Order 13777, to review and identify regulations that are candidates for removal.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8946.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” the Department established a Task Force, comprising, among others, agency officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the USPTO, and charged the Task Force with evaluating existing regulations and identifying those that should be repealed, replaced, or modified because they are outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, costly, or unduly burdensome to both government and private-sector operations.

    To support its regulatory reform efforts on the Task Force, the USPTO assembled a Working Group on Regulatory Reform (Working Group), consisting of subject-matter experts from each of the business units that implement the USPTO's regulations, to consider, review, and recommend ways that the regulations could be improved, revised, and streamlined. In considering the revisions, the USPTO, through its Working Group, incorporated into its analyses all presidential directives relating to regulatory reform. The Working Group reviewed existing regulations, both discretionary rules and those required by statute or judicial order. The USPTO also solicited comments from stakeholders through a web page established to provide information on the USPTO's regulatory reform efforts and through the Department's Federal Register Notice titled “Impact of Federal Regulations on Domestic Manufacturing” (82 FR 12786, Mar. 7, 2017), which addressed the impact of regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturing. These efforts led to the development of candidate regulations for removal based on the USPTO's assessment that these regulations were not needed and/or that elimination could improve the USPTO's body of regulations. This rule removes certain trademark-related regulations. Other rules removing regulations on other subject areas may be published separately.

    II. Regulations Being Removed

    This rule removes the regulations concerning trademark interferences codified at 37 CFR 2.91-2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. The rule also revises the authority citation for part 2 and revises the undesignated center heading “INTERFERENCES AND CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” to read “CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” to more accurately reflect the final regulations. A trademark interference is a proceeding in which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determines which, if any, of the owners of conflicting applications (or of one or more applications and one or more conflicting registrations) is entitled to registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. A trademark interference can be declared only upon petition to the Director of the USPTO (Director). However, the Director will grant such a petition only if the petitioner can show extraordinary circumstances that would result in a party being unduly prejudiced in the absence of an interference. 37 CFR 2.91(a). The availability of an opposition or cancellation proceeding to determine rights to registration ordinarily precludes the possibility of such undue prejudice to a party. Id. Thus, a petitioner must show that there is some extraordinary circumstance that would make the remedy of opposition or cancellation inadequate or prejudicial to the party's rights.

    Trademark interferences have generally been limited to situations where a party would otherwise be required to engage in a series of opposition or cancellation proceedings involving substantially the same issues. Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure § 1507. The promulgation of the interference regulations suggests that at that time, the Office contemplated such situations arising with enough frequency to merit particular regulations governing interference proceedings. However, the rarity of interference proceedings over an extended period of time indicates that the regulations are unnecessary. To the extent that the USPTO's paper petition records are searchable, the USPTO reviewed them and its electronic records of petitions and found that since 1983, the USPTO has received an average of approximately one petition for a trademark interference per year, and almost all of them have been denied except for one petition that was granted in 1985 (32 years ago). The USPTO has been unable to identify a situation since that time in which the Director has granted a petition to declare a trademark interference. Given the extremely low rate of filing over this long period of time, and because parties would still retain an avenue for seeking a declaration of interference through the general petition regulations, the USPTO considers the trademark interference regulations unnecessary.

    Section 16 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1066, states that the Director may declare an interference “[u]pon petition showing extraordinary circumstances.” Although eliminating §§ 2.91-2.93, 2.96, and 2.98 removes the regulations regarding the requirements for declaring a trademark interference, the statutory authority will remain. On the rare occasion that the Office receives a request that the Director declare a trademark interference, it is currently submitted as a petition under 37 CFR 2.146, a more general regulation on petitions. In the unlikely event that a need for an interference arose, it is still possible for a party to seek institution of a trademark interference by petitioning the Director under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4), whereby a petitioner may seek relief in any case not specifically defined and provided for by Part 2 of Title 37. Thus, even after removal of these rules, parties retain an avenue for seeking a declaration of interference.

    Removal of the identified trademark interference regulations in this rule achieves the objective of making the USPTO regulations more effective and more streamlined, while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. The USPTO's economic analysis shows that while the removal of these regulations is not expected to substantially reduce the burden on the impacted community, the regulations are nonetheless being eliminated because they are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective” regulations encompassed by the directives in Executive Order 13777.

    III. Proposed Rule: Comments and Responses

    The USPTO published a proposed rule on October 18, 2017 at 82 FR 48469, soliciting comments on the proposed amendments. In response, the USPTO received three comments relevant to the proposed rule. The commenters generally supported the proposed amendments as meeting the stated objectives. The USPTO appreciates the positive input, and these comments require no response.

    One commenter noted that the removal of the trademark interference rules will not relieve any burden, as a party can petition the Director to declare an interference with or without these rules, and suggested “that there should be real amendments which actually mitigate regulatory burden to incent entrepreneurship and market growth.” As noted above, removal of the identified regulations achieves the objective of making the USPTO regulations more effective and more streamlined, while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. Moreover, although removal of these regulations is not expected to substantially reduce the burden on the impacted community, they are being eliminated because they are “outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective” regulations that are encompassed by the directives in Executive Order 13777. The Office sought public suggestions on regulatory changes to reduce burdens in order to benefit from the public's input.

    All comments are posted on the USPTO's website at https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/comments-proposed-rulemaking-related-removal-rules.

    IV. Discussion of Rules Changes

    The USPTO revises the authority citation for part 2 to add “Sec. 2.99 also issued under secs. 16, 17, 60 Stat. 434; 15 U.S.C. 1066, 1067.” The USPTO revises the undesignated center heading “INTERFERENCES AND CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” to read “CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” and removes the authority citation immediately following that heading. The USPTO removes and reserves §§ 2.91-2.93, 2.96, and 2.98.

    Rulemaking Considerations

    A. Administrative Procedure Act: The changes in this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015) (Interpretive rules “advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an application process are procedural under the Administrative Procedure Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rules for handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the substantive standard for reviewing claims.).

    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for the changes in this rulemaking are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment procedures are required neither when an agency “issue[s] an initial interpretive rule” nor “when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule.”); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). However, the Office chose to seek public comment before implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the reasons set forth herein, the Senior Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Office of General Law, of the USPTO has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    This rule removes the regulations addressing trademark interferences codified at 37 CFR 2.91-2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. In trademark interferences, the Board determines which, if any, of the owners of conflicting applications (or of one or more applications and one or more conflicting registrations) is entitled to registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. Where searchable, the USPTO reviewed its paper and electronic records of petitions and found that since 1983, USPTO has received an average of approximately 1 such petition a year, and almost all of them have been denied except for one petition that was granted in 1985 (32 years ago). Because these regulations have rarely been invoked in the last 32 years and no trademark interference proceedings occurred during that time, the USPTO considers these regulations unnecessary and has determined to remove them. Removing the trademark interference regulations in this rule achieves the objective of making the USPTO regulations more effective and more streamlined, while enabling the USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. The removal of these regulations is not expected to substantively impact parties as, in the unlikely event that a need for a trademark interference arose, a party would be able to petition the Director under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4) for institution of an interference. For these reasons, this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): The Office has complied with Executive Order 13563. Specifically, the Office has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector and the public as a whole, and provided on-line access to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes.

    E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs): This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

    G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation): This rulemaking will not: (1) Have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

    H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).

    I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform): This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

    J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr. 21, 1997).

    K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

    L. Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this notice is not expected to result in a “major rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this notice do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    N. National Environmental Policy Act: This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act: The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that involve the use of technical standards.

    P. Paperwork Reduction Act: This rulemaking involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this rule has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control number 0651-0054.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects for 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the Office amends part 2 of title 37 as follows:

    PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES 1. The authority citation for part 2 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2 unless otherwise noted. Sec. 2.99 also issued under secs. 16, 17, 60 Stat. 434; 15 U.S.C. 1066, 1067.

    2. Revise the undesignated center heading “INTERFERENCES AND CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” above § 2.91 to read “CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS” and remove the authority citation immediately following that heading.
    § 2.91 [Reserved and Reserved]
    3. Remove and reserve § 2.91.
    § 2.92 [Reserved and Reserved]
    4. Remove and reserve § 2.92.
    § 2.93 [Reserved and Reserved]
    5. Remove and reserve § 2.93.
    § 2.96 [Reserved and Reserved]
    6. Remove and reserve § 2.96.
    § 2.98 [Reserved and Reserved]
    7. Remove and reserve § 2.98. Dated: July 10, 2018. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15163 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740; FRL-9980-81—Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements 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 Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on November 11, 2017, for the purpose of establishing minor changes to the gasoline dispensing regulations, including adding clarifying language and effective and compliance dates and specifying the counties subject to the reporting requirement rule. EPA has determined that Tennessee's November 11, 2017, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and with EPA's regulations and guidance.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0740. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected][email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On November 11, 2017, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking to add clarity for the benefit of the regulated community with gasoline dispensing facilities. Tennessee is making a minor change to its rules regarding gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF) at subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200-03-18-.24—“For any GDF otherwise exempt from subparagraph (c) of this paragraph based on monthly throughput, if the GDF ever exceeds the applicability threshold specified in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph, it shall be subject to the requirements of subparagraph (c) of this paragraph and shall remain subject to those requirements even if its throughput later falls below the threshold. The owner or operator shall inform the Technical Secretary within 30 days following the exceedance.” The revision clarifies the meaning and application of subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200-03-18-.24 by adding the words “ever” and “and shall remain subject to those requirements” italicized above.

    In addition, this revision replaces the phrase “the effective date of this rule” with the actual effective date of the rule (July 14, 2016) and replaces “three years after effective date” with the actual date of the rule for compliance (August 14, 2019). Finally, this revision adds the list of counties (Davidson, Rutherford, Shelby, Sumner, Knox, Anderson, Williamson and Wilson) that need to report to their permitting authority (if they emit more than 25 tons in a calendar year) and the cross reference to the existing reporting requirement in rule 1200-03-18-.02 to simplify the issuances of notices of authorization under pending permit-by-rule provisions.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The State's addition of clarifying language, specific dates for the gas dispensing rule's effective and compliance dates, as well as specifying the counties subject to the reporting requirement under the cross-referenced rule are approvable under section 110(l) because they merely clarify the application of the rule and are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations.

    In this action, EPA is approving TDEC's request to revise the Stage II requirements in the State of Tennessee. EPA published a proposed rulemaking on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 16279), to approve this revision. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposed rulemaking. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closed on May 16, 2018. While EPA received six unrelated comments, EPA did not receive any adverse comments for the proposed approval during the public comment period.

    II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TDEC Regulation section 1200-03-18-.24 entitled “Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage I and II Vapor Recovery,” effective August 31, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the November 11, 2017, revision to the Tennessee SIP, concerning Regulation 1200-03-18-24, Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements, submitted by the TDEC. This action makes minor changes to clarify the Regulation's meaning and applicability. EPA has determined that Tennessee's November 11, 2017, SIP revision related to the Stage I and II Vapor Recovery Requirements is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations and guidance related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP and that these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 17, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

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

    Subpart RR—Tennessee 2. Section 52.2220, is amended under CHAPTER 1200-3-18 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS by revising the entry for “Section 1200-3-18-.24, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities” to read as follows:
    § 52.2220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Table 1—EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * CHAPTER 1200-3-18 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 1200-3-18-.24 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 8/31/2017 7/17/2018, [Insert citation of publication] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-15148 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007; FRL-9980-71—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site (Site), located in Fridley, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL). 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). This direct final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Minnesota, through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA at OU3, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final partial deletion is effective September 17, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 16, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA 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-1989-0007, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit 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 Docket'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-1989-0007. 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.

    Mississippi Library, 410 Mississippi St. NE, Fridley, MN 55432, Phone: (763) 324-1560, Hours: Monday and Wednesday, 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Friday, 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The Navy has an online repository for the NIROP Site at the link below. Please click on the Administrative Records link to see all the documents. http://www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/env_restoration/administrative_records.html?p_instln_id=FRIDLEY_NIROP.

    The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has an information repository for the NIROP Site at their offices: 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. Call (651) 296-6300 or toll-free at (800) 657-3864 to schedule an appointment.

    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 Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to OU3, which includes all the unsaturated soils underlying the former Plating Shop Area. 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 NIROP 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 procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses OU3 of the NIROP Site and demonstrates how OU3 meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete OU3 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 (FYRs) 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 FYRs 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 OU3 of the NIROP Site:

    (1) EPA has consulted with the State of Minnesota prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notification 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 Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the State, through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 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 Notification of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the Sun Focus, located in Fridley, Minnesota. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notification 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 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 Site Partial Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting OU3 of the NIROP Site from the NPL. EPA believes it is appropriate to delete OU3 of the NIROP Site because all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and FYRs, have been completed at OU3 and it is ready for redevelopment as a commercial and/or industrial property.

    Site Background and History

    The NIROP Site (CERCLIS ID MN3170022914) is located in the northern portion of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area in an industrial/commercial area at 4800 E. River Road within the limits of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. The NIROP Site is not adjacent to any residential areas and is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, nor near any known environmentally sensitive areas.

    The Site is approximately 82.6 acres, most of which are covered with buildings or pavement. The U.S. Navy and/or its contractors produced advanced weapons systems at the facility beginning in 1940. In 2004, the U.S. Navy sold the property to FMC (now BAE). BAE then sold the property to ELT Minneapolis, LLC. ELT Minneapolis owned the former NIROP property and leased the space to United Defense LP until 2013. In 2013, ELT sold the property to Fridley Land, LLC, the current owner. Fridley Land LLC is in the process of redeveloping the property in phases for commercial and/or industrial use.

    The formerly government-owned portion of the facility constitutes what is now the NIROP Site. See the site map in NIROP Map Delineating Operable Units, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0075 in the Deletion Docket for OU3. (Note: portions of the main facility building depicted in the Site Map have since been demolished for redevelopment.) The Site Map also shows that the southern portion of the original facility is not part of the NIROP Site.

    The Navy and/or its contractors disposed paint sludges and chlorinated solvents generated from ordnance manufacturing processes in pits and trenches in the undeveloped area of the NIROP Site immediately north of the main facility building in the early 1970s. This area is called the North 40 area. MPCA received information concerning the historical waste disposal practices at NIROP and about the contaminant sources in the North 40 area and beneath the NIROP building in 1980.

    Trichloroethylene (TCE) was discovered in on-site groundwater wells and in the City of Minneapolis's drinking water treatment plant intake pipe, located in the Mississippi River less than 1 mile downstream from the Site, in 1981. The Navy conducted investigations in 1983 which identified pits and trenches in the North 40 area of the NIROP Site where drummed wastes were deposited. The Navy excavated approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 43 (55-gallon) drums and disposed them off-site from November 1983 to March 1984.

    EPA proposed the NIROP Site to the NPL on July 14, 1989 (54 FR 29820). EPA finalized the NIROP Site on the NPL on November 21, 1989 (54 FR 48184).

    EPA, MPCA and the Navy signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) in March 1991. Per the FFA, one of the purposes of that agreement was to ”Identify alternatives for Remedial Action for Operable Units” appropriate for the Site prior to the implementation of Final Remedial Actions for the Site.

    EPA divided the NIROP Site into three operable units (OUs) to make it easier to address the contaminant issues at the Site. OU3, the subject of this partial deletion, includes all the unsaturated soils underlying the former Plating Shop Area of the Site. The extent of OU3 is detailed in the site map in NIROP Map Delineating Operable Units, Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0075 in the Deletion Docket for OU3.

    The current scope of OU3 is provided in EPA's August 12, 2013 Memorandum to File that restructured the OUs at the Site. OU3 initially included: (1) All saturated and unsaturated soil underneath the main NIROP manufacturing building, excluding the extreme southern portion of the building, and (2) all saturated soil under and outside the main NIROP manufacturing building, within the legal boundaries of the Site.

    EPA's 2013 Memorandum limited the scope of OU3 to unsaturated soil under the former Plating Shop Area. The saturated soils that were initially part of OU3 are now included with OU1. The remaining unsaturated soil under the main NIROP building outside the former Plating Shop Area that were part of OU3 are being addressed as part of OU2.

    OU1, which includes the contaminated groundwater within and originating from the NIROP Site, and now saturated soils, will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of this action. EPA deleted OU2, which includes all the unsaturated soils within the legal boundaries of the NIROP Site excluding the unsaturated soils under the former Plating Shop Area, from the NPL effective August 29, 2014 (79 FR 36658, June 30, 2014).

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The groundwater in the unconsolidated aquifer beneath the Site is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including: TCE, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), tetrachloroethylene (PERC), 1,1-dichloroethane, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. Some or all of the contaminants identified are hazardous substances as defined in section 104(14) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), and 40 CFR 302.4. TCE was found more frequently and at higher concentrations than any other VOC, and is considered to be the best indicator chemical for the Site.

    In April 1995, the Navy was renovating the East Plating Shop (now called the former Plating Shop Area or OU3) inside the main manufacturing building, to accommodate an electrical assembly facility. During the renovation, when all of the tanks were removed and prior to the floor repairs being made, the Navy collected soil and groundwater samples to determine whether past plating activities had impacted soil and groundwater beneath the building.

    The Navy detected TCE, TCA, PERC and DCE at elevated levels in soil and groundwater. The Navy also found elevated metals concentrations, including chromium, in the vicinity of a former sump. (Note: With the ongoing redevelopment at the Site, OU3 is no longer inside the main manufacturing building. The portion of the building that housed OU3 has since been demolished.)

    The Navy detected the highest concentrations of TCE and PERC in the 1995 sampling event in surface (0 to 4 feet below ground surface [bgs]), shallow subsurface (4 to 12 feet bgs), and deep subsurface (>12 feet bgs) soil samples collected from the East Plating Shop. This indicated the possible presence of a “hot spot” of TCE and PERC in this area and the likelihood that the East Plating Shop was the source area for these VOCs and chromium.

    The 2002 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) identified an unacceptable potential risk/hazard in OU3 for exposure to soil in the East Plating Shop area under the major-infrequent construction worker exposure scenario. The major-infrequent construction worker exposure scenario assumed construction workers would have a short-term exposure to the maximum concentration of soil contaminants detected from 0-12 feet bgs in the East Plating Shop area during major modifications to the building slab and foundations. The HHRA did not identify any unacceptable risks or hazards to exposure to OU3 soil under a commercial/industrial scenario.

    The cancer risk calculated for the major-infrequent construction worker in the 2002 HHRA was 2.1 × 10−6. This risk is within EPA's acceptable risk range of 1 × 10−4 to 1 × 10−6, but exceeds MPCA's acceptable subchronic incremental cancer risk of 1 × 10−6.

    The noncancer risks calculated for the major-infrequent construction worker in OU3 in the 2002 HHRA was a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1.35 for chromium, and a total hazard index (HI) of 2.9 for all chemicals. These levels exceed EPA's acceptable noncancer HQ of 1 for individual contaminants and a HI of 1 for multiple chemicals, and MCPA's acceptable subchronic HQ and HI levels of 1 for individual and multiple chemicals.

    Chromium is most commonly present in its less-toxic trivalent form because environmental conditions typically favor the reduction of the more-toxic hexavalent chromium to its less-toxic trivalent state. The 2002 HHRA, however, conservatively assumed that 100 percent of the chromium detected in the East Plating Shop area was in the hexavalent form, due to the absence of site-specific speciated data and considering historic Site use. Based on this assumption of 100 percent hexavalent chromium, the potential risks to OU3 receptors from exposure to chromium in the 2002 HHRA were likely overestimated.

    Several years after the OU3 remedy was selected and implemented, in 2015, the Navy conducted additional soil sampling in OU3 for total and hexavalent chromium analysis. The analytical results show that at most, the more toxic hexavalent chromium constitutes only 7 percent of the total OU3 chromium measured. The 2015 total and hexavalent chromium concentrations in soil were both below the MPCA soil reference values for industrial use. The Navy used these speciated chromium results to complete a more accurate, focused risk assessment for OU3 chromium in 2016.

    In 2016, the Navy also excavated soils beneath the East Plating Shop to remove a potential source of TCE to the groundwater. The excavated soil was in the same area as the elevated chromium concentrations evaluated in the 2002 HHRA. This soil removal aided in reducing any potential health risks associated with chromium.

    The Navy completed the Focused Human Health Risk Assessment (FHHRA) for the East Plating Shop area in 2016. The Navy did not include in the data set the soil samples collected in 2015 in the areas subsequently excavated as part of the 2016 East Plating Shop excavation because they were no longer present or available for contact by human receptors.

    The FHHRA determined that, for the major-infrequent construction worker exposure scenario, the potential non-cancer HI for all contaminants of potential concern (COPCs)/target organs combined is 0.16. This HI is below EPA's and MPCA's target HI of 1 and does not exceed MPCA's target HQ level of 0.2 for individual COCs. Therefore, the 2016 FHHRA concluded that there are no unacceptable risks or hazards for major-infrequent construction workers who may be exposed to chemicals in mixed OU3 soil.

    Selected Remedy

    EPA, MPCA and the Navy issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 on September 28, 1990, and a ROD for OU2 and OU3 on September 17, 2003. EPA issued a Memorandum to File on September 5, 2013 clarifying the OU definitions at the site. The changes to the structure of the OUs in the 2013 Memorandum to File did not alter any of the selected remedies for the Site. EPA, MPCA and the Navy issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) documenting a requirement for groundwater institutional controls (ICs) as part of the OU1 remedy on September 26, 2014. EPA, MPCA and the Navy issued an ESD documenting a change in some of the IC requirements for OU3 on July 19, 2017. These documents are available the Docket under Docket Document IDs EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0062 (1990 OU1 ROD), EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0063 (2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD), EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0068 (2013 Memorandum to File), EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0069 (2014 OU1 ESD) and EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0071 (2017 OU3 ESD).

    The original remedial action objectives (RAOs) for OU3 in the 2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD were: (1) To prevent unacceptable risks due to residential or other unrestricted exposures to contaminated soils at the Site, and (2) to prevent unacceptable risks to industrial or construction workers due to exposures to contaminated soils at the Site. The remedial action specified for OU3 soils in the 2003 ROD were engineering controls (ECs) and ICs. The original selected remedy for OU3 was: (1) To restrict the use of the Property to industrial or restricted commercial use, until and unless EPA and MPCA determine that concentrations of hazardous substances in the soils have been reduced to levels that allow for a less restrictive use; (2) to prohibit the disturbance of soils beneath the Designated Restricted Area known as the concrete pit foundations where metal-finishing operations previously occurred at the former Plating Shop within the Main Manufacturing Building without the prior written approval of the EPA and MPCA; and (3) to ensure that the concrete pit floor (approximately 8 to 12 feet below grade floor) where metal finishing operations previously occurred at the former Plating Shop within the Main Manufacturing Building is not removed without the prior written approval of EPA and MPCA. That floor will serve as an EC.

    On July 19, 2017, EPA, MPCA and the Navy issued an ESD to remove the requirement for some of the ICs and ECs in the OU3 remedy. The remedy components described in the 2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD were initially required to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the OU3 soil because the OU3 soil contamination remained at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

    The 2017 ESD modified the selected remedy for OU3 by removing the second and third remedy components described above from the OU3 remedy. Specifically, there was no longer a need to prohibit the disturbance of soils beneath the former Plating Shop area, nor to ensure that the concrete pit floor at the former Plating Shop remains in place.

    EPA, MPCA and the Navy included these two OU3 remedy components in the 2003 ROD based on the conservative assumption in the 2002 HHRA that all of the chromium in OU3 soil was in the more-toxic hexavalent form. Based on the 2015 sampling data, which included speciated chromium results, and the 2016 FHHRA, which found no unacceptable risks or hazards for the major-infrequent construction worker scenario at OU3, the floor in the Plating Shop is no longer needed as an EC and OU3 ICs prohibiting the soils beneath the Plating Shop from being disturbed are no longer necessary.

    The IC restricting OU3 to industrial or restricted commercial use in the 2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD [i.e., OU3 remedy component (1) listed above], remains part of the selected remedy for OU3. Implemented ICs at the Site are shown in Figure 2 of the 2017 OU3 ESD in the Docket (Docket Document ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007-0071).

    Response Actions

    EPA concurred with the Navy's March 2004 Land Use Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) for OU3 in August 2004. The LUCRD specifies how the OU3 remedy will be implemented, maintained, and enforced if any breach of the remedy should occur. The LUCRD details the Navy's continuing responsibilities with respect to OU3, including: Ensuring that annual on-site physical inspections of OU3 are performed to confirm continued compliance with all Land Use Control (LUC) Performance Objectives; ensuring that annual LUC Compliance Certifications are provided to EPA and MPCA that explain any deficiency, if found; conducting FYRs of the remedy as required by CERCLA and the NCP; notifying EPA and MPCA prior to any planned property conveyance; providing EPA and MPCA the opportunity to review the text of intended deed provisions; and notifying EPA and MPCA if Site activities might interfere with LUC effectiveness.

    The LUCs were incorporated into a Quitclaim Deed that was executed by the property owner, the United States and MPCA on June 17, 2004. The Quitclaim Deed acts as an environmental covenant describing the property restrictions. The deed restrictions run with the land such that any subsequent property owner is bound by the same restrictions. The LUCs are to remain in place until EPA and MPCA determine that the concentrations of hazardous substances in the OU3 soils have been reduced to levels that allow for a less restrictive use.

    In 2017, EPA, MPCA and the Navy issued an ESD for OU3 removing the requirement for two of the three OU3 LUCs required by the 2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD. The 2017 ESD removed the requirement for the LUCs that required the concrete pit floor in the former Plating Shop to remain in place and for the soils in the former Plating Shop area to remain undisturbed.

    Cleanup Levels

    There was no cleanup associated with the original remedy for OU3. In 2016, however, soils beneath the East Plating Shop were excavated and replaced with clean soil to address a potential source of TCE to the groundwater as part of OU1. The excavated soil was in the same area as the elevated chromium concentrations evaluated in the 2002 HHRA. The 2016 TCE soil removal also aided in reducing any potential health risk associated with chromium. This further justified the removal of the LUCs for the former Plating Shop floor and for the soil below the floor described in the 2017 OU3 ESD.

    Operation and Maintenance

    The Navy is the lead agency for the Site and is responsible for conducting routine inspections to ensure that the LUCs are maintained and enforced. The Navy is responsible for reporting the results of the inspections and any breach of the LUCs to the MPCA and EPA.

    Five-Year Review

    The Navy conducted the last FYR at the Site in October 2013. The 2013 FYR concluded that the remedy at NIROP for OU3 is protective of human health and the environment. The 2013 FYR did not identify any issues or recommendations for OU3. The FYR calls for the Navy to continue long-term stewardship to ensure that the LUC restricting land use at the Site to industrial or restricted commercial use is maintained. The next FYR for the Site is scheduled for October 2018.

    Redevelopment

    Redevelopment is currently underway to redevelop the NIROP Site into a commercial office/warehouse complex. This redevelopment is consistent with the existing Land Use Designation for the Site. The three parties to the FFA agree that delisting OU3 from the NPL will facilitate the redevelopment effort and allow OU3 to become eligible for State and Federal Brownfields funding. Superfund NPL site property is not eligible for Federal Brownfields funding.

    A developer has enrolled the NIROP Site and adjacent land into MPCA's Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. In conjunction with the redevelopment of the NIROP Site, any additional investigations will be conducted under the oversight and direction of MPCA's VIC program. Under the VIC program, MPCA also requested that all buildings at the NIROP Site have vapor mitigation units installed them and the builder has complied.

    Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. EPA published a document announcing this proposed Direct Final Partial Deletion and announcing the 30-day public comment period in the Sun Focus concurrent with publishing this partial deletion in the Federal Register. Documents in the deletion docket, which EPA relied on for recommending the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories and at www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket include maps which identify the specific parcels of land that are included in this proposed Direct Final Partial Deletion (i.e., OU3).

    Determination That the Criteria for Partial Deletion Have Been Met

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that portions of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate in that area or media. All cleanup actions specified for OU3 of the NIROP Site in the 2003 OU2 and OU3 ROD and the 2017 OU3 ESD have been implemented at the Site. EPA, in consultation with the State of Minnesota, has determined that no further action is warranted to protect human health and the environment at OU3 and that OU3 of the NIROP Site meets the criteria for Partial Deletion from the NPL.

    V. Partial Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Minnesota through the MPCA, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA at OU3, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting OU3 of the NIROP 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 17, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 16, 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 notification 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 waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15240 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 10-90, 16-271; FCC 16-115] Connect America Fund, Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the rules for the Connect America Fund contained in the Commission's Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan Order, FCC 16-115. This document is consistent with the Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the new information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    The amendments regarding §§ 54.313(f)(1)(i), 54.313(f)(3) and 54.313(l) published at 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016, are effective July 17, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or via email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission submitted revised information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on May 30, 2018, which were approved by OMB on July 2, 2018. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan Order, FCC 16-115, published at 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0986. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules published October 7, 2016. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0986, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

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

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 2, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.313(f)(1)(i), 54.313(f)(3) and 54.313(l), published at 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0986.

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

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0986.

    OMB Approval Date: July 2, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2021.

    Title: High-Cost Universal Service Support.

    Form Number: FCC Form 481, FCC Form 505, FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509 and FCC Form 525.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,877 respondents; 14,335 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-15 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 63,486 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission notes that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Privately-held rate-of-return carriers may file the financial information they disclose in FCC Form 481 pursuant to a protective order.

    Needs and Uses: On November 18, 2011, the Commission adopted an order reforming its high-cost universal service support mechanisms. Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establish Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; GN Docket No. 09-51; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45; WT Docket No. 10-208, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), and the Commission and Wireline Competition Bureau have since adopted a number of orders that implement the USF/ICC Transformation Order; see also Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 605 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 14549 (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2051 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7227 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7766 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7211 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10488 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 (2016). The Commission has received OMB approval for most of the information collections required by these orders. At a later date, the Commission plans to submit additional revisions for OMB review to address other reforms adopted in the orders (e.g., 47 CFR 54.313(a)(6)).

    More recently, on August 23, 2016, the Commission adopted the Alaska Plan Order. See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271; WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139 (2016) (Alaska Plan Order). In that order, the Commission adopted a plan for providing Alaskan rate-of-return carriers and competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) the option to obtain a fixed level of funding for a defined term in exchange for committing to deployment obligations that are tailored to each Alaskan carrier's circumstances. ETCs receiving support pursuant to the Alaska Plan must comply with the Commission's existing high-cost reporting and oversight mechanisms, with certain exceptions and modifications.

    On July 7, 2017, the Commission adopted the ETC Reporting Streamlining Order. See Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5944 (2017) (ETC Reporting Streamlining Order). In that order, the Commission streamlined the annual reporting requirements for ETCs by eliminating rules duplicative of other reporting requirements or that are no longer necessary.

    Further, since the previous filing deadline associated with this collection, changing circumstances have made filing certain information no longer necessary or required under the rules. For instance, the final Connect America Phase I incremental support deployment deadlines were in early 2017, so there are no longer any reporting obligations associated with that support.

    Moreover, because the Connect America Phase II challenge process has ended, the Commission removed Form 505 from this collection. The Commission also moved FCC Form 507, FCC Form 508, FCC Form 509 and the accompanying instructions to information collection 3060-0233.

    The Commission therefore revises this information collection, as well as Form 481 and its accompanying instructions, to reflect these new or modified requirements. The Commission also implemented a number of non-substantive changes to the Form 481 and accompanying instructions. Any increased burdens for particular reporting requirements are associated with ETCs newly subject to those requirements as a condition of receiving high-cost support.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15171 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 17-169; FCC 18-78] Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission takes measures to strengthen our rules to protect consumers from slamming and cramming by codifying rules against sales call misrepresentations and cramming and revising rules to improve the effectiveness of the third-party verification (TPV) process. Slamming is an unauthorized change in a consumers' telephone provider and cramming is the placement of an unauthorized charge on the consumers' telephone bill.

    DATES:

    Effective August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard D. Smith, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (717) 338-2797, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, document FCC 18-78, adopted on June 7, 2018, and released on June 8, 2018, in CG Docket No. 17-169. The full text of document FCC 18-78 will be available for public inspection and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2272 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Congressional Review Act

    The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 18-78 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The Report and Order does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Synopsis Misrepresentations on Sales Calls

    1. The Commission's recent enforcement actions reveal that misrepresentations on sales calls are a continuing source of slamming. The Commission therefore codifies a rule to prohibit material misrepresentation, including material omissions, in sales calls to further reduce the incidence of slamming. A codified rule is consistent with the Commission's statutory authority and prior enforcement actions. In addition, codifying this prohibition in our rules will provide carriers and consumers with more specific information and notice of this prohibited practice. In so doing, the Commission notes that it revised the Slamming and Cramming NPRM's proposed rule, published at 82 FR 37830, August 14, 2017, on sales calls by deleting the reference to “deception.” The Commission finds that this term is vague and subject to an unclear interpretation absent a record to define it.

    2. Upon a finding of material misrepresentation in the sales call, the consumer's authorization to change carriers will be deemed invalid even if the carrier has some evidence of consumer authorization of a switch. In this regard, our enforcement cases make clear that sales misrepresentations may not be cured by a facially valid TPV. When a consumer's decision to switch carriers is predicated on false information provided in a sales call, that consumer's authorization to switch carriers can no longer be considered binding.

    3. A codified rule is consistent with the Commission's statutory authority and prior enforcement actions. Section 201(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with [interstate or foreign] communication service [by wire or radio], shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.” The Commission has found that misrepresentations made by interstate common carriers constitute unjust and unreasonable practices under section 201(b) of the Act. Sales calls that contain misrepresentations undermine the effectiveness of the carrier's validation procedures under Section 258 of the Act, and thus are an unjust and unreasonable practice that is “in connection with” the communication service that is the subject of the verification process.

    4. Material Violations. The Commission bans only “material” misrepresentations on sales calls. In so doing, the Commission acknowledges that occasional minor or trivial inaccuracies that have no bearing on the consumer's decision to switch carriers can occur and may not rise to a level warranting enforcement action, consistent with how the Commission has exercised its enforcement discretion in the past. The Commission declines, however, to require that such misrepresentations also be “intentional.” The Commission has never articulated an intentionality standard when it has penalized carriers for misrepresentations on sales calls in the past. Rather, the Commission's forfeiture policies already require that, when determining the appropriate adjustment to a base forfeiture amount (rather than whether the act is a violation), the Commission considers “egregious conduct” and “intentional violation” consistent with section 503 of the Act. The Commission believes this allows sufficient flexibility to take “intent” into consideration as an aggravating or mitigating factor when a violation of this rule occurs.

    5. Defining “Sales Call.” The Commission's slamming rules are designed to prevent a provider from switching a consumer's preferred carrier without the consumer's permission. Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” Thus, for purposes of the slamming rules, the Commission clarifies that a “sales call” is any telephone call in which a carrier encourages a subscriber to submit or execute a change in the subscriber's provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.

    6. Recording Sales Calls. The Commission declines to mandate that sales calls be recorded. Although the Commission agrees with commenters that recordings would aid in determining whether a misrepresentation occurred, the record contains unrebutted evidence that any such mandate would necessitate industry-wide installation of recording technologies, amending existing protocols with vendors that make such calls on carriers' behalf, recording large numbers of calls, and storing those records for some specified period when the vast majority of these calls do not result in consumer complaints. The principal consumer benefit of a recording mandate would be to aid enforcement, but the Commission is confident in light of the success of our prior enforcement actions that we can continue to enforce our rules even without a mandate, and nothing in the record persuades us otherwise.

    7. Nonetheless, the Commission encourages carriers and their agents to record sales calls. The Commission clarifies that a consumer's allegation of a sales call misrepresentation shifts the burden of proof to the carrier making the sales call to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the claim. The Commission believes that in those instances in which a consumer has provided credible evidence of a misrepresentation that a carrier is uniquely positioned via its access to sales scripts, recordings, training, and other relevant materials relating to sales calls to proffer evidence to rebut those claims if they are without merit. In most instances, the consumer will not have access to these same materials. An accurate and complete sales call recording may be a carrier's best such evidence, and the record indicates that at least some carriers already record calls for training and monitoring purposes. Those carriers that do not and/or choose not to record sales calls will have to develop other means to rebut credible consumer allegations of misrepresentations on sales calls.

    Unauthorized Charges on Telephone Bills

    8. The Commission codifies a prohibition on the placement of unauthorized charges on telephone bills. Although cramming has been a long-standing issue addressed in various enforcement actions, and the Commission has adopted truth-in-billing rules to help detect it, the Commission has never codified a rule against cramming. The Commission thus codifies in a new § 64.2401(g) of the Commission's truth-in-billing rules the prohibition against cramming that it has long enforced under section 201(b) of the Act. The Commission believes codifying the cramming prohibition for wireline and wireless carriers will act as a deterrent to this conduct. In so doing, the Commission agrees with commenters that codifying a ban against cramming provides greater clarity to interested parties and will aid its enforcement efforts. In addition, codifying this prohibition into its rules will provide consumers with more specific information and notice of this prohibited practice.

    9. The Commission agrees with those commenters who contend that wireless consumers should be afforded the same consumer protections as wireline consumers when such unauthorized charges appear on their telephone bills. This approach is also consistent with the Commission's prior enforcement investigations conducted under section 201(b) holding wireless providers accountable for alleged unauthorized charges that appeared on wireless bills.

    Third-Party Verification

    10. Authorizing Individual Services. The Commission eliminates the requirement in § 64.1120(b) of its rules that carriers must obtain the authorization for each individual service sold when the carrier is selling more than one telecommunications service to a subscriber. The Commission agrees with those commenters who suggest there is minimal benefit to asking consumers if they want to separately switch individual services based on regulatory classifications that may be outdated and unfamiliar to them.

    11. TPV Abuses. The Commission remains concerned that the TPV process has been misused in some instances to fraudulently verify consumer authorization to switch providers. Its prior enforcement actions confirm instances of abuse of the TPV process. Although the current record does not contain a sufficient basis to eliminate this widely-used verification mechanism, the Commission believes that these documented abuses warrant additional oversight. As a result, the Commission concludes that any carrier that becomes the subject of a Commission forfeiture order through abuse of that process will be suspended for a period of five years from using the TPV process to confirm consumer switches. That will necessitate that these carriers use other recognized sources of evidence under our rules, such as a letter of agency, to confirm a consumer switch during the pendency of that suspension. The Commission notes that this suspension process will be applied only going forward from the effective date of the rules adopted in document FC 18-78. Thus, carriers and verifiers will be afforded an opportunity to take proactive measures to correct any deficiencies that have resulted in prior enforcement actions. In addition to strengthening its requirements in this action, the Commission reminds carriers that it takes violations of its rules seriously and the Commission will continue to use its enforcement authority to stop bad actors, including through substantial monetary penalties and revocation of Commission operating authorization.

    Other Measures

    12. In light of the enhanced consumer protections afforded by the rules adopted in document FCC 18-78, the apparent diminishing nature of the slamming and cramming problem as evidenced by recent complaint data, and the potential costs of compliance with additional requirements, the Commission declines to mandate any other changes to its rules.

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    13. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Slamming and Cramming NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Slamming and Cramming NPRM, including comments on the IFRA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

    Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    14. This document FCC 18-78 adopts rules to strengthen consumer protections from slamming and cramming. Slamming is the unauthorized change of a consumer's preferred interexchange telecommunications service provider, and cramming is the placement of unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill. Despite existing slamming and truth-in-billing rules, recent enforcement actions indicate that the most vulnerable consumers, including the elderly and non-English speakers, remain at significant risk of being the victims of these fraudulent practices because unscrupulous carriers often make it difficult to detect such conduct. Specifically, the Commission adopts rules designed to provide greater clarity of these existing prohibitions and assist in our enforcement actions where such conduct occurs.

    15. Section 258 of the Act makes it unlawful for any telecommunication carrier to “submit or execute a change in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” The rules adopted in document FCC 18-78 will strengthen the Commission's ability to deter slamming by addressing misleading statements made in sales calls which the record confirms are a substantial factor in slamming. For example, when a consumer's decision to switch carriers is made based on false information provided in a sales call, that consumer's authorization to switch carrier will no longer be considered binding. In addition, the Commission streamlines the carrier change process by eliminating the requirement that the consumer's authorization be obtained for every service to be switched when selling more than one telecommunications service. This will improve the efficiency for both carriers and consumers when making carrier change requests by eliminating unnecessary regulatory impediments. Finally, any telecommunications carrier that is the subject of a Commission forfeiture action will be suspended for a period of five years from using that process to confirm a consumer switch. This will ensure that greater care is taken by both carriers and verifiers to avoid TPV abuses.

    16. The Commission has found on numerous instances that cramming is an “unjust and unreasonable” practice in violation of section 201(b) of the Act but has never codified a prohibition against cramming in our rules. Doing so in document FCC 18-78 provides greater clarity of this long-recognized prohibition to interested parties and will assist in our enforcement efforts of this prohibited practice.

    Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    17. One comment was filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA. Although supporting the adoption of the two proposed rules contained in the Slamming and Cramming NPRM, NTCA argues that the IRFA was deficient because the other measures discussed therein were vague and lacked specificity.

    Response to Comments by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration

    18. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

    19. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

    Small Entities Impacted

    20. The rules adopted in document FCC 18-78 will affect obligations of Wireline and Wireless telecommunications carriers.

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    21. In document FCC 18-78, the Commission adopt rules to enhance the existing consumer protections from slamming and cramming. Specifically, the Commission adopts rules to codify a ban on: (i) Material misrepresentations on sales calls for voice services; and (ii) unauthorized charges on telephone bills. Although the Commission has previously held that these practices are unjust and unreasonable practices under section 201(b) of the Act, its rules have not expressly prohibited them. Because these prohibitions have been long recognized pursuant to our enforcement actions, however, they should not necessitate any new burdens for those carriers are that in compliance. In addition, the Commission takes steps to improve the effectiveness of the existing carrier change process by eliminating the requirement that carriers obtain the authorization to switch each individual service when selling more than one service and by suspending any carrier for a five-year period from using the TPV process when it becomes the subject of a Commission forfeiture action.

    Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    22. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”

    23. The rules adopted in document FCC 18-78 codify long-recognized consumer protections from slamming and cramming. In prior enforcement actions, the Commission has previously held that these practices are unjust and unreasonable practices under section 201(b) of the Act. As a result, the economic impact on affected carriers should be minimal because they impose no new requirements. In declining to adopt other measures discussed in the Slamming and Cramming NPRM, the Commission has taken into consideration the potential burdens on carriers, including smaller carriers, in determining that such actions are not justified at this time. In these instances, the Commission has taken into consideration the concerns of industry commenters that the potential costs and delays that may result from these measures outweigh the potential benefits to consumers.

    Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b), and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 258, document FCC 18-78 is adopted, and part 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 64.1120 and 64.2401 are amended.

    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 18-78 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 18-78, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

    PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 251(e), 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 64.1120 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 64.1120 Verification of orders for telecommunications services.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Authorization from the subscriber, subject to the following:

    (A) Material misrepresentation on the sales call is prohibited. Upon a consumer's credible allegation of a sales call misrepresentation, the burden of proof shifts to the carrier making the sales call to provide persuasive evidence to rebut the claim. Upon a finding that such a material misrepresentation has occurred on a sales call, the subscriber's authorization to switch carriers will be deemed invalid.

    (B) [Reserved]

    (b) Any telecommunications carrier that becomes the subject of a Commission forfeiture action through a violation of the third-party verification process set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of this section will be suspended for a five-year period from utilizing the third-party verification process to confirm a carrier change.

    3. Amend § 64.2401 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 64.2401 Truth-in-Billing Requirements.

    (g) Prohibition against unauthorized charges. Carriers shall not place or cause to be placed on any telephone bill charges that have not been authorized by the subscriber.

    [FR Doc. 2018-14151 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 17-141; CC Docket No. 96-128; WC Docket No. 16-132; FCC 18-21] Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules; Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission's payphone compensation rules. This document is consistent with the Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules Report and Order, FCC 18-21, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

    DATES:

    The amendment to 47 CFR 64.1310(a)(3) published at 83 FR 11422, March 15, 2018, is effective on July 17, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Levy Berlove, Attorney Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1477, or by email at [email protected] For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on July 2, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to certain payphone compensation rules contained in the Commission's Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules Report and Order, FCC 18-21, published at 83 FR 11422, March 15, 2018, as specified above.

    The OMB Control Number is 3060-1046. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1046, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]

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

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on July 2, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 64. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1046. The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1046.

    OMB Approval Date: July 2, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2021.

    Title: Part 64, Modernization of Payphone Compensation Rules et al., WC Docket No. 17-141 et al., FCC 18-21.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 329 respondents; 2,257 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.50 hours-122 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one-time, and quarterly reporting requirements; third party disclosure requirements; and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 and 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 34,720 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost(s).

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Section 276 of the Communications Act, as amended (the Act), requires that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) establish rules ensuring that payphone service providers or PSPs are “fairly compensated” for each and every completed payphone-originated call. The Commission's Payphone Compensation Rules satisfy section 276 by identifying the party liable for compensation and establishing a mechanism for PSPs to be paid. A 2003 Report and Order (FCC 03-235) established detailed rules (Payphone Compensation Rules) ensuring that payphone service providers or PSPs are “fairly compensated” for each and every completed payphone-originated call pursuant to section 276 of the Communications Act, as amended (the Act). The Payphone Compensation Rules satisfy section 276 by identifying the party liable for compensation and establishing a mechanism for PSPs to be paid. The Payphone Compensation Rules: (1) Place liability to compensate PSPs for payphone-originated calls on the facilities-based long distance carriers or switch-based resellers (SBRs) from whose switches such calls are completed; (2) define these responsible carriers as “Completing Carriers” and require them to develop their own system of tracking calls to completion; (3) require Completing Carriers to file with PSPs a quarterly report and also submit an attestation by the chief financial officer (CFO) that the payment amount for that quarter is accurate and is based on 100% of all completed calls; (4) require quarterly reporting obligations for other facilities-based long distance carriers in the call path, if any, and define these carriers as “Intermediate Carriers;” and (5) give parties flexibility to agree to alternative compensation arrangements (ACA) so that small Completing Carriers may avoid the expense of instituting a tracking system and undergoing an audit. On February 22, 2018, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, FCC 18-21 (2018 Payphone Order), that: (1) Eliminated the payphone call tracking system audit and associated reporting requirements; (2) permitted a company official, including but no longer limited to, the chief financial officer (CFO), to certify that a Completing Carrier's quarterly compensation payments to PSPs are accurate and complete; and (3) eliminated expired interim and intermediate per-payphone compensation rules that no longer apply to any entity. We believe that the revisions adopted in the 2018 Payphone Order significantly decrease the paperwork burden on carriers.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15157 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 [GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 17-158] Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with FCC 17-158. This document is consistent with the Commission's Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

    DATES:

    The additions of 47 CFR 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 as published at 83 FR 4998, February 2, 2018, are effective as of July 17, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Evan Baranoff, Policy Division, Media Bureau, at 202-418-7142, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on July 2, 2018, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in §§ 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of the Commission's rules. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1254. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of these rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1254, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected] To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on July 2, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in §§ 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 of the Commission's rules. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

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

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

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1254.

    OMB Approval Date: July 2, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2021.

    Title: Next Gen TV/ATSC 3.0 Local Simulcasting Rules; 47 CFR 73.3801 (full-power TV), 73.6029 (Class A TV), and 74.782 (low-power TV) and FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application)

    Form Number: FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application)

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, state, local, or tribal government and not for profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,130 respondents; 4,760 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-8 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.

    Total Annual Burden: 3,504 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $130,500.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: On November 20, 2017, the Commission released a Report and Order (Order), FCC 17-158, in GN Docket No. 16-142, authorizing television broadcasters to use the “Next Generation” broadcast television (Next Gen TV) transmission standard, also called “ATSC 3.0” or “3.0,” on a voluntary, market-driven basis. This authorization is subject to broadcasters continuing to deliver current-generation digital television (DTV) service, using the ATSC 1.0 transmission standard, also called “ATSC 1.0” or “1.0,” to their viewers. The requirement to continue to provide ATSC 1.0 service is called “local simulcasting.” The local simulcasting rules (47 CFR 73.3801 (full-power TV), 73.6029 (Class A TV), and 74.782 (low-power TV),) contain the following information collection requirements which require OMB approval.

    License Application to FCC/FCC Form 2100 (Reporting Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(f), 73.6029(f), and 74.782(g)): A broadcaster must file an application (FCC Form 2100) with the Commission, and receive Commission approval, before: (i) Moving its ATSC 1.0 signal to the facilities of a host station, moving that signal from the facilities of an existing host station to the facilities of a different host station, or discontinuing an ATSC 1.0 guest signal; (ii) commencing the airing of an ATSC 3.0 signal on the facilities of a host station (that has already converted to ATSC 3.0 operation), moving its ATSC 3.0 signal to the facilities of a different host station, or discontinuing an ATSC 3.0 guest signal; or (iii) converting its existing station to transmit an ATSC 3.0 signal or converting the station from ATSC 3.0 back to ATSC 1.0 transmissions. As directed by the Commission, the Media Bureau will be amending FCC Form 2100 and the relevant schedules (Schedules B, D & F) (See Schedule B—Full Power License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0837); Schedule D—LPTV/Translator License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0017); and Schedule F—Class A License to cover application (OMB control number 3060-0928)) as necessary to implement the Next Gen TV licensing process and collect the required information (detailed below). The form will be revised to establish the streamlined “one-step” licensing process for Next Gen TV applicants, including adding the above listed purposes (i-iii) to the form. FCC staff will use the license application to determine compliance with FCC rules and to determine whether the public interest would be served by grant of the application for a Next Gen TV station license.

    Next Gen TV Broadcaster On-Air Notices to Consumers (Third-Party Disclosure Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), and 74.782(h)): Commercial and noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast TV stations that relocate their ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a host station's facility, subsequently moving to a different host, or returning to its original facility) are required to air daily Public Service Announcements (PSAs) or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date that the stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations on their existing facilities. Stations that transition directly to ATSC 3.0 will be required to air daily PSAs or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date that the stations will terminate ATSC 1.0 operations. Broadcaster on-air notices to consumers will be used to inform consumers if stations they watch will be changing channels and encouraged to rescan their receivers for new channel assignments.

    Next Gen TV Broadcaster Written Notices to MVPDs (Third-Party Disclosure Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(h), 73.6029(h), and 74.782(i)): Next Gen TV stations relocating their ATSC 1.0 signals (e.g., moving to a temporary host station's facilities, subsequently moving to a different host, or returning to its original facility) must provide notice to MVPDs that: (i) No longer will be required to carry the station's ATSC 1.0 signal due to the relocation; or (ii) carry and will continue to be obligated to carry the station's ATSC 1.0 signal from the new location. Broadcaster notices to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) will be used to notify MVPDs that carry a Next Gen TV broadcast station about channel changes and facility information.

    Local Simulcasting Agreements (Recordkeeping Requirement; 47 CFR 73.3801(e), 73.6029(e), and 74.782(f)): Broadcasters must maintain a written copy of any local simulcasting agreement and provide it to the Commission upon request. FCC staff will review the local simulcasting agreement (when applicable) to determine compliance with FCC rules and to determine whether the public interest would be served by grant of the application for a Next Gen TV station license.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15156 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Federal Procurement Policy 48 CFR Part 9903 Cost Accounting Standards: Revision of the Exemption From Cost Accounting Standards for Contracts and Subcontracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Items AGENCY:

    Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Board, is publishing a final rule revising the exemption for contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items. This final rule clarifies the types of contracts that are exempt from the application of Cost Accounting Standards when acquiring commercial items.

    DATES:

    Effective August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raymond Wong, Staff Director, Cost Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 202-395-6805; email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule revises the exemption 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b)(6) for contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items (hereafter referred to as the “(b)(6) commercial item exemption”).

    A. Regulatory Process—Changes to 48 CFR Part 9903

    The CAS Board's regulations and Standards are codified at 48 CFR chapter 99. This final rule amends a CAS Board regulation other than a Standard and, as such, is not subject to the statutorily prescribed rulemaking process for the promulgation of a Standard at 41 U.S.C. 1502(c) [formerly, 41 U.S.C. 422(g)].

    B. Background and Summary

    In November 2012, the CAS Board issued a proposed rule to clarify the exemption from CAS when acquiring commercial items. 77 FR 69422. The exemption enumerates the contract types that are authorized when procuring commercial items. Over the years, the CAS Board has issued several rules addressing the exemption to reflect statutory changes regarding the types of contracts that may be used in commercial item acquisitions. See 61 FR 39360 (providing an exemption for firm-fixed-price contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items as authorized by section 4305 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (FARA), Pub. L. 104-106); 62 FR 31294 (adding fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustments other than those based on actual incurred costs for labor and materials); and 72 FR 36367 (expanding the list of exempt contract types to include time-and-material and labor- hour contracts, in response to changes made by section 1432 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-136, which authorized these types of contracts for the acquisition of commercial items).

    Since enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act in 1994 (Pub. L. 103-355), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) has included an enumerated list of contract types authorized for use in acquiring commercial items. See 48 CFR part 12.207. Similar to the CAS Board, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council has amended FAR 12.207 several times to reflect statutory changes and clarify the intent of the regulation. An inconsistency has developed between the list of contract types recognized for use in acquiring commercial items set forth in paragraph (b)(6) and that commercial item exemption and contract types reflected in FAR 12.207. For example, FAR 12.207 allows the use of firmed fixed price contracts in conjunction with award fee incentives or performance or delivery incentives, known as fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts, when the award fee or incentive is based solely on factors other than cost. However, the (b)(6) exemption does not expressly recognize FPI contracts on the enumerated list of exempt contracts. Because of this discrepancy, some commenters on a prior CAS Board rulemaking expressed concern that these types of FPI contracts might be excluded under a literal reading of the (b)(6) exemption. See 72 FR 36367.

    In its proposed rule, the CAS Board sought to address the inconsistencies between the lists in the (b)(6) exemption and FAR 12.207 by removing reference to specific contract types in the (b)(6) exemption and instead making simple reference to “contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items.” The CAS Board explained that this generalized language would “obviate the continuing need to update and keep current a detailed listing of permissible contract types for the acquisition of commercial items, which continues to evolve with the passage of time.” 77 FR 69424. The CAS Board further explained that this language tracks the exemption set forth in its authorizing statute at 41 U.S.C. 1502(b)(1)(C)(i) as well as the language in section 4205 of the Clinger-Cohen Act.

    The CAS Board received several comments in response to the proposed rule. A discussion of the comments and the Board's responses are set forth in section C. Of particular note, some commenters raised concern that more general language may perpetuate ambiguities regarding what contract types are covered by the exemption. After review of the public comments and further deliberation, the CAS Board has concluded that the desired goal of clarification can be more effectively achieved by adding language to the exemption that cross references to FAR 12.207 and its enumeration of contract types authorized for the acquisition of commercial items. The CAS Board believes this approach has multiple benefits. This linkage will eliminate disparities between the FAR and CAS Board rules regarding the description of contract types authorized for commercial item acquisitions. In addition, by maintaining reference to an enumerated list of authorized contract types for commercial item acquisitions, this formulation will avoid the ambiguity that could have been created if the more generalized language in proposed rule were adopted. The CAS Board also hopes that this change will avoid the need for additional CAS Board rulemakings in the event of future statutory actions addressing allowable contract types for commercial item procurements.

    Accordingly, this final rule amends the language at 9903.201-1(b)(6) to exempt contracts and subcontracts authorized in 48 CFR 12.207 for the acquisition of commercial items. The CAS Board intends to monitor the effectiveness of this rule in achieving the intent of the law regarding CAS exemptions.

    C. Public Comments

    The CAS Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on November 19, 2012, proposing to revise the (b)(6) commercial item exemption to read: “[c]ontracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items,” (77 FR 69422). In response to the NPR, the CAS Board received comments from four entities, one of which supported the proposed rule without change and three of which raised concerns. A summary of concerns and the CAS Board's response are below.

    1. Lack of clarity. Three commenters raised concern that deletion of the more detailed explanation of what contract types are exempt from CAS will increase confusion. One commenter stated that the change “may be confusing to the inexperienced, including both contractors and Government representatives” who may not immediately understand how to interpret the phrase “contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items” without further explanation. This commenter suggested that the exemption include a specific cross reference to statute or regulation so that the reader could more easily determine the exempt contract types. Other commenters warned that a blanket exemption could lead to overpayment. One of these commenters admonished the Board on the need to preserve a more tailored exemption that continues to clarify that the exemption does not apply to specific contract types that involve reimbursement or pricing based on actual costs.

    Response: The Board agrees that readers need to be made aware of the specific contracts that are covered by the exemption. This specificity will help ensure easy, clear, and consistent application. As explained above, the Board believes that reference to FAR 12.207, which identifies contract types that may be used to acquire commercial items should accomplish this objective. In this regard, the CAS Board notes that amendments to the CAS Board's authorizing statute made by section 820 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 make clear that the Board bears a responsibility to “minimize the burden on contractors while protecting the interests of the Federal Government.” The Board believes this goal is shared by the FAR Council, especially in light of direction provided in Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which directs agencies to “manage costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.”

    The Board intends to monitor the effectiveness of this final rule in achieving the intent of the law regarding CAS exemptions and retains the right to change the approach in the future should any changes to FAR 12.207 that the Board believes are inconsistent with this objective occur.

    2. Disclosure statements. Two commenters recommended the CAS Board develop Cost Accounting Standards and Disclosure Statement requirements for commercial item acquisitions, as Congress had required in the Clinger-Cohen Act. One of those commenters stated that such steps were needed before the permissible contract types are expanded to include certain cost type contracts.

    Response: Creating CAS and Disclosure Statements for commercial item acquisitions would be outside the scope of this rulemaking effort. The CAS Board is aware of the direction contained in the Conference Report to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act to “establish guidance, consistent with commercial accounting systems and practices, to ensure that contractors appropriately assign costs to contracts (other than firm, fixed-price contracts) that are covered by the exemption for contracts or subcontracts where the price negotiated is based on established catalog or market prices of commercial items sold in substantial quantities to the general public.” That assessment was made by the CAS Board when promulgating the 1997 final rule. However, since the law currently prohibits the use of cost type contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, the Board believes there is little to be gained from developing and imposing Cost Accounting Standards and Disclosure Statement requirements at this time. However, the CAS Board continues to reserve the right to issue such cost accounting standards and disclosure statement requirements should the need arise in the future.

    3. Hybrid and indefinite-delivery-indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. One commenter raised the question of how to determine whether CAS is triggered on a “hybrid” contract that contains contract line item numbers (CLINs) for both commercial items and non-commercial items where the total value of the contract exceeds the CAS applicability threshold. The commenter suggested that CAS be clarified to ensure CLINs for commercial items on a hybrid contract are not covered by CAS, irrespective of the value of the contract. The commenter further recommended clarification of the CAS triggers for IDIQ contracts, which are often used to acquire commercial items—in particular whether to value the contract based on the size of orders or the size of the umbrella contract.

    Response: While issues related to the applicability of CAS to hybrid and IDIQ contracts are outside the scope of this rulemaking effort, the CAS Board takes note of these issues. The Board intends to review these issues more carefully to determine whether clarification of its rules is needed to ensure appropriate application of CAS coverage.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Subchapter I) does not apply to this rulemaking, because this rule will impose no paperwork burden on offerors, affected contractors and subcontractors, or members of the public which requires the approval of OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The purpose of this rule is to clarify the application of CAS to contracts for commercial items. In addition, this rule is consistent with the intent of the objectives of the “Streamlined Applicability of Cost Accounting Standards” set forth in Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65).

    E. Executive Orders 12866 and 13771, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule provides technical clarification on the application of exemptions from CAS for commercial item acquisitions consistent with authorities in the Clinger-Cohen Act. By cross referencing FAR 12.207 and its enumeration of contract types authorized for the acquisition of commercial items, the CAS Board expects to eliminate disparities between the FAR and CAS Board rules that has created confusion for contractors and subcontractors. The economic impact on contractors and subcontractors is, therefore, expected to be minor. As a result, the Board has determined that this rule will not result in the promulgation of an “economically significant rule” under the provisions of Executive Order 12866, and that a regulatory impact analysis will not be required, and the requirements of E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, do not apply. For the same reason, this final rule is not a “major rule” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8. Finally, this rule does not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities because small businesses are exempt from the application of the Cost Accounting Standards. Therefore, this rule does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 6.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 9903

    Cost Accounting Standards, Government procurement.

    Lesley A. Field, Acting Chair, Cost Accounting Standards Board.

    For the reasons set forth in this preamble, 48 CFR part 9903 is amended as follows:

    PART 9903—CONTRACT COVERAGE 1. The authority citation for part 9903 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 111-350, 124 Stat. 3677, 41 U.S.C. 1502.

    2. Section 9903.201-1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:
    9903.201-1 CAS applicability.

    (b) * * *

    (6) Contracts and subcontracts authorized in 48 CFR 12.207 for the acquisition of commercial items.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15176 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 180205129-8129-01] RIN 0648-BH50 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule makes editorial corrections amending the regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS). This final action will make the rules easier to use by making the cross-references in the regulations accurate, correcting grammatical and punctuation issues, and reformatting the regulations where needed to be consistent with Federal Register guidelines. The action also in several instances simplifies regulatory text by removing unnecessary language. The rule is administrative in nature and does not make any change with substantive effect to the regulations for HMS fisheries.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents related to HMS fisheries management, such as the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, are available from the HMS Management Division website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species or upon request from the HMS Management Division at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lauren Latchford, Larry Redd, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq., (ATCA). On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which details the management measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries; these management measures have been amended or otherwise modified numerous times. The implementing regulations for Atlantic HMS are at 50 CFR part 635.

    Background

    The regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are promulgated under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the conservation and management of Atlantic highly migratory species, including species of tunas, billfish, sharks, and swordfish. In 2006, NMFS consolidated Atlantic HMS management into one fishery management plan, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. Since then, NMFS has amended the FMP ten times through the fishery management plan amendment process and has made numerous other regulatory changes through framework actions. With this volume of regulatory action, some small grammatical and other errors have accumulated over time. As described in the sections below, this technical amendment corrects grammatical, punctuation, consistency, cross-reference errors in the HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635. As explained in the Consistency section below, it also simplifies regulatory text by removing unnecessary language in several limited instances.

    Typographical Corrections

    The following grammatical, punctuation, or clerical errors (i.e., typographical errors) in the HMS regulations are corrected by this final rule:

    The definition of “CK” at § 635.2 does not spell out the words for which it is an acronym. This final action therefore adds “Cleithrum to Caudal Keel” before the acronym “CK.” The definition of “Hammerhead Sharks” at § 635.2 capitalizes the word “shark(s).” This final action changes to lowercase the word “shark(s).” The regulation at § 635.4(l)(2)(viii) does not capitalize the word “tunas” in the permit title, “Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP.” This final action capitalizes the word “Tunas.” The regulation at § 635.5(b)(1)(i) has commas incorrectly after the words “all” and “swordfish” in the sentence, “All reports must be species-specific and must include the required information about all, swordfish, and sharks received by the dealer.” This final action removes the misplaced commas. The regulation at § 635.5(c)(2) is missing apostrophes and has extra parentheses in three places where the text should read, “owner's designee.” This final action adds apostrophes and removes the mistaken parentheses to correct this text. The regulations at § 635.6(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1) do not capitalize the word “Arabic.” This final action corrects this error and capitalizes “Arabic.” The regulation at § 635.9(e)(4) has two commas rather than one after the words “trip” and “e.g.” This final action removes the extra commas. The regulation at § 635.14(b)(1) uses two different styles of quotation marks around the words “bluefin tuna ratio.” This final action changes the quotation marks so that they are the same and removes the colon within this regulation. The regulation at § 635.14(b)(1) incorrectly capitalizes the word “Swordfish.” This final action changes “Swordfish” to “swordfish.” The regulation at § 635.15(c)(3)(iv) is missing the word “year” and has an extra period at the end of the first sentence. This final action adds the word “year” and removes the extra period. Additionally, this regulation incorrectly capitalizes the words “Eastern Time.” This final action changes “Eastern Time” to “eastern time.” The regulation at § 635.21(g)(1) uses “NOAA Fisheries,” and the final action changes it to “NMFS” for consistency across the regulations. The regulation at § 635.27(d)(1) incorrectly uses the word “this” in the second sentence. This final action changes “this” to “the.” Additionally, this final action removes outdated language regarding an effective date of January 1, 2007 from § 635.27(d)(1). Additionally, for § 635.28(d), this final action capitalizes the lower case “n” for the species Northern albacore tuna.

    The regulations at §§ 635.2, 635.4(e)(3) and (g)(2), 635.21(d)(2)(ii), 635.27(b)(1), 635.28(b)(1)(iv), and 635.34(c) do not consistently capitalize the word “Table” and lowercase the word “appendix” in the phrase, “Table 1 of appendix A to this part.” This final action corrects the references to “Table 1 of appendix A to this part” in §§ 635.2, 635.4(e)(3) and (g)(2), 635.21(d)(2)(ii), 635.27(b)(1), 635.28(b)(1)(iv), and 635.34(c) so that capitalization and phrasing are consistent throughout.

    Limited Access Permit Corrections

    The HMS regulations at § 635.2 currently provide a definition for “LAP,” defining it as an acronym for the “limited access permit.” The HMS regulations do not consistently use the acronym, however, and still refer to “limited access permits” or “limited access vessel permits” sometimes in the regulations. Consistency across the regulations would make them clearer. The regulations at §§ 635.4(a)(3), (d)(4), (e)(2) through (4), (f)(1), (2), (4), and (5), (h)(2), (l)(2)(ii)(A) through (C), (l)(2)(iii) through (ix), and (m)(2), 635.8(a)(1) and (3), (c)(2) and (3), 635.15(k) introductory text and (k)(4)(iii), 635.19(e)(4), 635.21(b)(1), (c)(3) and (4), (c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B), (g)(2) and (3), 635.27(c)(1)(i)(A) and (B), 635.28(a)(3), and 635.71(a)(53) and (e)(10) and (11) do not use the acronym “LAP” for “limited access permit.” This final action changes “limited access permit” to “LAP” so that the acronym defined at § 635.2 is used consistently across the HMS regulations. The regulations at §§ 635.15(k) and (l)(4)(iii) and 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B) incorrectly use the word “permit” or “permitted” instead of the acronym “LAP” when referring to the Atlantic Tunas Longline category limited access permit. For consistency within the regulations referring to the Atlantic Tunas Longline category limited access permit, this final action changes the word “permit” or “permitted” to “LAP.” The regulations at §§ 635.4(l)(2)(iii) and 635.21(b)(1) incorrectly name a permit as “tuna longline LAPs.” This final action corrects the permit name to “Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP.” The regulations at §§ 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(A) and 635.71(a)(40) and (b)(36) through (38), incorrectly list a permit name as “tunas Longline category permit.” This final action corrects the permit name to “Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP.” The regulations at § 635.15(k) improperly exclude the word “category” from the permit name, “Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP.” This final action corrects the error by adding the word “category.” The regulations at § 635.23(a)(2) incorrectly list the permit as “General category Atlantic Tunas permit.” This final action corrects the permit name to “Atlantic Tunas General category permit.” Additionally this final action removes language referring specifically to “one large medium or giant BFT per day” allowed to be caught or landed on days other than RFDs. Because NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range of zero to a maximum of five under cross reference § 635.23(a)(4), it is more clear to refer to the “daily retention limit in effect for that day.” The regulation at § 635.71(b)(20) incorrectly lists the relevant permit as “Purse Seine category Atlantic tuna permit.” This final action corrects the permit name to “Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category LAP.”

    Cross References Corrections

    This final action corrects the incorrect cross references found in the definitions and regulations at §§ 635.2 (definitions of “Display Permit” and “EFP”), 635.4(a)(8) and (h)(1)(iii), 635.5(a)(5)(ii), 635.21(c)(5)(ii)(C)(1) and (c)(5)(iv), 635.28(b)(7), (c)(3), and (d), 635.31(d)(2), and 635.40(b)(1). Section 635.21(c)(5)(iv) references paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) as specifying “[o]ther devices proposed for use as line clippers or cutters or de-hookers.” This final action adds references to paragraphs (I) and (J) to that list. Additionally, §§ 635.22(c)(1) and (5) and (d) and 635.23(a)(2) and (4), have cross references that are broadly referenced and need to be more specific to the correct provision under part 635. This action corrects those cross references by adding the specific cross reference location (e.g., within § 635.22(c)(1), changing the reference from § 635.4 to § 635.4(e)).

    Consistency Corrections

    Regulations at §§ 635.2 (definition of “Exporter”) and 635.4(a)(6) use a Federal Register citation format that is inconsistent with the citation format otherwise used in part 635. This final action revises the citation format for consistency purposes.

    At § 635.4(c)(2), this final action changes the word “issued” to “with” to be more internally consistent.

    At § 635.4(l)(2)(viii), this final action removes the word “an” to be more internally consistent.

    The current regulations do not consistently refer to swordfish and shark LAPs, sometimes referring to them as “catch LAPs” and other times spelling out “limited access permit.” This inconsistency in terminology can lead to confusion. As such, this final action changes these swordfish and shark LAP references to be more internally consistent to clarify the regulations. Specifically, the regulations at § 635.4(l)(2)(viii) and (ix) use the phrase, “a directed or incidental LAP for swordfish, a directed or an incidental catch LAP for shark.” This final action will correct the phrase to, “a directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a directed or incidental shark LAP.” The regulations at § 635.4(l)(2)(viii) uses the phrase “a LAP for swordfish.” This final action corrects the phrase to “a swordfish LAP.” The regulations at § 635.4(l)(2)(viii) and (ix) uses the phrase “a directed or incidental catch shark LAP,” respectively. This final action corrects the phrase to “a directed or incidental shark LAP,” respectively. The regulations at § 635.4(l)(2)(ix) use the phrase “directed or incidental catch swordfish or shark LAP.” This final action will correct the phrase to “directed or incidental swordfish or shark LAP.” The regulation at § 635.22(f) uses the phrase “incidental or handgear limited access swordfish permit.” This final action will correct the phrase to “incidental or handgear swordfish LAP.”

    The definition of “Fishing Year” at § 635.2 includes incorrect language left over from past definitions. The fishing year for all tunas, sharks, billfish, and swordfish is January 1 through December 31, as reflected in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This final action removes this outdated text and simplifies the definition for tunas, sharks, billfish and swordfish to match the dates established in previous actions, reading “January 1 through December 31.”

    The first sentence at § 635.20(b) starts with the phrase, “The size class of a BFT found with the head removed shall be determined using . . .” This phrase, referring to a BFT that is “found,” is confusing and inconsistent with a similar regulation at § 635.20(f) (“For a swordfish that has its head naturally attached . . .”). This final action re-words the phrase found in § 635.20(b) to be less confusing and more consistent with the wording at § 635.20(f). With this change, § 635.20(b) will read, “If the head of a BFT is no longer attached, the size class of the BFT shall be determined using . . .”

    The regulation at § 635.40(b)(3) references 19 CFR 10.79, the “Declaration of Master and Two Members of Crew on Entry of Products of American Fisheries.” Section 10.79 no longer exists within title 19, and has instead been reserved. This final action removes language referencing this obsolete regulation and reserves this location. This change would not have any effect on the part 635 regulations since 19 CFR 10.79 has been amended and reserved.

    Finally, the regulation at § 635.21(d)(1)(iii)(D) refers to out-of-date coordinates for the Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. This final action updates the old boundary coordinates for the Charleston Deep Artificial Reef to match the boundary changes that were recently made to the Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA via Snapper Grouper Amendment 36 (82 FR 29772, June 30, 2017).

    Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of U.S. fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, ATCA, and other applicable law.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This final rule makes only corrective, non-substantive changes to regulatory text, adds missing cross-references and/or corrects cross-references to HMS regulations, and in several instances, removes unnecessary language, and is solely administrative in nature. Therefore, public comment would serve no purpose and is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is in the public interest to revise the regulations as quickly as possible to reduce any potential confusion to the public of the regulatory requirements at 50 CFR part 635. Any delay in implementation would result in the continuation of this potential confusion. Thus, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, and a proposed rule is not being published, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

    NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted pursuant to this rule will not affect endangered and/or threatened species or critical habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act, or marine mammals protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, because the action is purely administrative in nature by making editorial corrections or clarifications to existing regulatory text, with no substantive changes or effects.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:

    PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 635.2, revise the definition of “Atlantic Aggregated LCS,” remove the definition of “CK,” add the definition of “Cleithrum to Caudal Keel or CK,” and revise the definitions of “Display permit,” “EFP,” “Exporter,” “Fishing year,” “Gulf of Mexico Aggregated LCS,” “Hammerhead Shark(s),” “Highly migratory species (HMS),” “Large coastal shark (LCS),” “Non-blacknose SCS,” “Pelagic shark,” “Prohibited shark,” “Research LCS,” “Small coastal shark (SCS),” and “Smoothhound shark(s)” to read as follows:
    § 635.2 Definitions.

    Atlantic Aggregated LCS means one of the following species, or parts thereof, as listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part: Atlantic blacktip, bull, lemon, nurse, silky, spinner, and tiger.

    Cleithrum to Caudal Keel or CK measurement means the length of a fish measured along the body contour, i.e., a curved measurement, from the point on the cleithrum that provides the shortest possible measurement along the body contour to the anterior portion of the caudal keel. The cleithrum is the semicircular bony structure at the posterior edge of the gill opening.

    Display permit means a permit issued in order to catch and land HMS for the purpose of public display pursuant to § 635.32(d).

    EFP means an exempted fishing permit issued pursuant to § 600.745 of this chapter or to § 635.32(c).

    Exporter, for purposes of this subpart, is the principal party in interest, meaning the party that receives the primary benefit, monetary or otherwise, of the export transaction. For exports from the United States, the exporter is the U.S. principal party in interest, as identified in 15 CFR part 30. An exporter is subject to the requirements of this subpart, even if exports are exempt from statistical reporting requirements under 15 CFR part 30.

    Fishing year means January 1 through December 31.

    Gulf of Mexico Aggregated LCS means one of the following species, or parts thereof, as listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part: Bull, lemon, nurse, silky, spinner, and tiger.

    Hammerhead shark(s) means great, scalloped, and smooth hammerhead shark species, or parts thereof, as listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    Highly migratory species (HMS) means bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin, albacore, and skipjack tunas; swordfish; sharks (listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part); white marlin; blue marlin; sailfish; longbill spearfish; and roundscale spearfish.

    Large coastal shark (LCS) means one of the species, or a part thereof, listed in heading A, Large Coastal Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    Non-blacknose SCS means one of the species, or part thereof, listed in heading B, Small Coastal Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part other than the blacknose shark.

    Pelagic shark means one of the species, or a part thereof, listed in heading C, Pelagic Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    Prohibited shark means one of the species, or a part thereof, listed in heading D, Prohibited Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    Research LCS means one of the species, or part thereof, listed in heading A, Large Coastal Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part, other than sandbar sharks.

    Small coastal shark (SCS) means one of the species, or a part thereof, listed in heading B, Small Coastal Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    Smoothhound shark(s) means one of the species, or part thereof, listed in heading E, Smoothhound Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    3. In § 635.4, revise paragraphs (a)(3), (6), and (8), (c)(2), (d)(4), (e)(2) through (4), (f)(1), (2), (4), and (5), (g)(2), (h)(1)(iii), (h)(2), (l)(2)(ii)(A) through (C), (l)(2)(iii) through (ix), and (m)(2) to read as follows:
    § 635.4 Permits and fees.

    (a)

    (3) Property rights. LAPs or any other permit issued pursuant to this part do not represent either an absolute right to the resource or any interest that is subject to the takings provision of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, LAPs represent only a harvesting privilege that may be revoked, suspended, or amended subject to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or other applicable law.

    (6) Sanctions and denials. A permit issued under this section may be revoked, suspended, or modified, and a permit application may be denied, in accordance with the procedures governing enforcement-related permit sanctions and denials found at 15 CFR part 904, subpart D.

    (8) Replacement. NMFS may issue a replacement permit upon the request of the permittee. An application for a replacement permit will not be considered a new application. An appropriate fee, consistent with paragraph (a)(9) of this section, may be charged for issuance of the replacement permit.

    (c) * * *

    (2) A vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas General category permit issued under paragraph (d) of this section or with a valid Swordfish General Commercial permit issued under paragraph (f) of this section may fish in a recreational HMS fishing tournament if the vessel has registered for, paid an entry fee to, and is fishing under the rules of a tournament that has registered with NMFS' HMS Management Division as required under § 635.5(d). When a vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas General category permit or a valid Swordfish General Commercial permit is fishing in such a tournament, such vessel must comply with HMS Angling category regulations, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) through (5) of this section.

    (d) * * *

    (4) A person can obtain an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for a vessel only if the vessel has been issued both a LAP for shark and a LAP, other than handgear, for swordfish. Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAPs may only be obtained through transfer from current owners consistent with the provisions under paragraph (l)(2) of this section.

    (e) * * *

    (2) The owner of vessels that fish for, take, retain, or possess the Atlantic oceanic sharks listed in headings A, B, or C of Table 1 of appendix A to this part with an intention to sell must obtain a Federal Atlantic commercial shark directed or incidental LAP or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit. The only valid Federal commercial shark directed and shark incidental LAPs are those that have been issued under the limited access program consistent with the provisions under paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section.

    (3) A vessel owner issued or required to be issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark directed or shark incidental LAP may harvest, consistent with the other regulations in this part, any shark species listed in headings A, B, or C of Table 1 of appendix A to this part.

    (4) Owners of vessels that fish for, take, retain, or possess the Atlantic oceanic sharks listed in heading E, Smoothhound Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part with an intention to sell them must obtain a Federal commercial smoothhound permit. In addition to other permits issued pursuant to this section or other authorities, a Federal commercial smoothhound permit may be issued to a vessel alone or to a vessel that also holds either a Federal Atlantic commercial shark directed or incidental LAP.

    (f) * * *

    (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section, the owner of a vessel of the United States used to fish for or take swordfish commercially from the management unit, or on which swordfish from the management unit are retained or possessed with an intention to sell, or from which swordfish are sold, must obtain an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement issued under paragraph (b) of this section, or one of the following swordfish permits: A swordfish directed LAP, swordfish incidental LAP, swordfish handgear LAP, or a Swordfish General Commercial permit. These permits cannot be held in combination with each other on the same vessel, except that an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement may be held in combination with a swordfish handgear LAP on the same vessel. It is a rebuttable presumption that the owner or operator of a vessel on which swordfish are possessed in excess of the recreational retention limits intends to sell the swordfish. (2) The only valid commercial Federal vessel permits for swordfish are the HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement issued under paragraph (b) of this section (and only when on a non for-hire trip), the Swordfish General Commercial permit issued under paragraph (f) of this section, a swordfish LAP issued consistent with paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section, or permits issued under paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section.

    (4) A directed or incidental swordfish LAP is valid only when the vessel has on board a valid shark LAP and a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP issued for such vessel.

    (5) A Swordfish General Commercial permit may not be held on a vessel in conjunction with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit issued under paragraph (b) of this section, an HMS Angling category permit issued under paragraph (c) of this section, a swordfish LAP issued consistent with paragraphs (l) and (m) of this section, an Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit issued under paragraph (n) of this section, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit issued under paragraph (o) of this section. A vessel issued a Swordfish General Commercial open access permit for a fishing year shall not be issued an HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit for that same fishing year, regardless of a change in the vessel's ownership.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Shark. A dealer, as defined in § 600.10 of this chapter, must possess a valid federal Atlantic shark dealer permit to purchase, trade, or barter any Atlantic shark listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part except as noted under paragraph (o) of this section.

    (h) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) NMFS may require an applicant to provide documentation supporting the application before a permit is issued or to substantiate why such permit should not be revoked or otherwise sanctioned under paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

    (2) LAPs for swordfish and shark. See paragraph (l) of this section for transfers of LAPs for shark and swordfish. See paragraph (m) of this section for renewals of LAPs for shark and swordfish.

    (l) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) The vessel baseline specifications are the respective specifications (length overall, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, horsepower) of the first vessel that was issued an initial LAP or, if applicable, of that vessel's replacement owned as of May 28, 1999.

    (B) Subsequent to the issuance of a swordfish handgear LAP, the vessel's horsepower may be increased, relative to the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP, through refitting, replacement, or transfer. Such an increase may not exceed 20 percent of the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP.

    (C) Subsequent to the issuance of a swordfish handgear LAP, the vessel's length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage may be increased, relative to the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP, through refitting, replacement, or transfer. An increase in any of these three specifications of vessel size may not exceed 10 percent of the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP. This type of upgrade may be done separately from an engine horsepower upgrade.

    (iii) No person or entity may own or control more than 5 percent of the vessels for which swordfish directed, shark directed, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAPs have been issued.

    (iv) In order to transfer a swordfish, shark, or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP to a replacement vessel, the owner of the vessel issued the LAP must submit a request to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the LAP to another vessel, subject to requirements specified in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, if applicable. The owner must return the current valid LAP to NMFS with a complete application for a LAP, as specified in paragraph (h) of this section, for the replacement vessel. Copies of both vessels' U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must accompany the application.

    (v) For swordfish, shark, and Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP transfers to a different person, the transferee must submit a request to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the original LAP(s), subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, if applicable. The following must accompany the completed application: The original LAP(s) with signatures of both parties to the transaction on the back of the permit(s) and the bill of sale for the permit(s). A person must include copies of both vessels' U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration for LAP transfers involving vessels.

    (vi) For LAP transfers in conjunction with the sale of the permitted vessel, the transferee of the vessel and LAP(s) issued to that vessel must submit a request to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the limited access permit(s) LAP(s), subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, if applicable. The following must accompany the completed application: The original LAP(s) with signatures of both parties to the transaction on the back of the permit(s), the bill of sale for the LAP(s) and the vessel, and a copy of the vessel's U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration.

    (vii) The owner of a vessel issued a LAP(s) who sells the permitted vessel but retains the LAP(s) must notify NMFS within 30 days after the sale of the change in application information in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. If the owner wishes to transfer the LAP(s) to a replacement vessel, he/she must apply according to the procedures in paragraph (l)(2)(iv) of this section.

    (viii) As specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, a directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a directed or incidental shark LAP, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP are required to retain swordfish for commercial purposes. Accordingly, a swordfish LAP obtained by transfer without either a directed or incidental shark LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP will not entitle an owner or operator to use a vessel to fish in the swordfish fishery.

    (ix) As specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, a directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a directed or incidental shark LAP, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP are required to retain Atlantic tunas taken by pelagic longline gear. Accordingly, an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP obtained by transfer without either a directed or incidental swordfish or shark LAP will not entitle an owner or operator to use the permitted vessel to fish in the Atlantic tunas fishery with pelagic longline gear.

    (m) * * *

    (2) Shark and swordfish permits. A vessel owner must obtain the applicable LAP(s) issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and/or a Federal commercial smoothhound permit issued under paragraph (e) of this section; or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit issued under paragraph (o) of this section, if: The vessel is used to fish for or take sharks commercially from the management unit; sharks from the management unit are retained or possessed on the vessel with an intention to sell; or sharks from the management unit are sold from the vessel. A vessel owner must obtain the applicable LAP(s) issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, a Swordfish General Commercial permit issued under paragraph (f) of this section, an Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit issued under paragraph (n) of this section, an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit issued under paragraph (o) of this section, or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement issued under paragraph (b) of this section, which authorizes a Charter/Headboat to fish commercially for swordfish on a non for-hire trip subject to the retention limits at § 635.24(b)(4) if: The vessel is used to fish for or take swordfish commercially from the management unit; swordfish from the management unit are retained or possessed on the vessel with an intention to sell; or swordfish from the management unit are sold from the vessel. The commercial retention and sale of swordfish from vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement is permissible only when the vessel is on a non for-hire trip. Only persons holding non-expired shark and swordfish LAP(s) in the preceding year are eligible to renew those LAP(s). Transferors may not renew LAP(s) that have been transferred according to the procedures in paragraph (l) of this section.

    4. In § 635.5, revise paragraphs (a)(5)(ii), (b)(1)(i), and (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.

    (a) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (ii) Before fishing under a chartering arrangement, the owner of a fishing vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction must apply for, and obtain, a chartering permit as specified in § 635.32(e) and (g). If a chartering permit is obtained, the vessel owner must submit catch information as specified in the terms and conditions of that permit. All catches will be recorded and counted against the applicable quota of the Contracting Party to which the chartering foreign entity is a member and, unless otherwise provided in the chartering permit, must be offloaded in the ports of the chartering foreign entity or offloaded under the direct supervision of the chartering foreign entity.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Dealers that have been issued or should have been issued a Federal Atlantic BAYS tunas, swordfish, and/or shark dealer permit under § 635.4 must submit to NMFS all reports required under this section within the timeframe specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. BAYS tunas, swordfish, and sharks commercially-harvested by a vessel can only be first received by dealers that have been issued or should have been issued an Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and/or shark dealer permit under § 635.4. All federal Atlantic HMS dealers must provide a detailed report of all fish first received to NMFS within the period specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. All reports must be species-specific and must include the required information about all swordfish and sharks received by the dealer, including the required vessel information, regardless of where the fish were harvested or whether the harvesting vessel is permitted under § 635.4. For sharks, each report must specify the total weight of the carcass(es) without the fins for each species, and the total fin weight by grade for all sharks combined. Dealers are also required to submit “negative” reports, indicating no receipt of any species, within the timeframe specified under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section if they did not first receive any fish during the reporting period. As stated in § 635.4(a)(6), failure to comply with these recordkeeping and reporting requirements may result in existing dealer permit(s) being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any permit applications.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Non-tournament landings. The owner, or the owner's designee, of a vessel permitted, or required to be permitted, in the Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat category must report all non-tournament landings of Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and Atlantic sailfish, and all non-tournament and non-commercial landings of North Atlantic swordfish to NMFS by telephone to a number designated by NMFS, or electronically via the internet to an internet website designated by NMFS, or by other means as specified by NMFS, within 24 hours of that landing. For telephone landing reports, the owner, or the owner's designee, must provide a contact phone number so that a NMFS designee can call the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, for follow up questions and to confirm the reported landing. Regardless of how submitted, landing reports submitted to NMFS are not complete unless the vessel owner, or the owner's designee, has received a confirmation number from NMFS or a NMFS designee.

    5. In § 635.6, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 635.6 Vessel and gear identification.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) In block Arabic numerals permanently affixed to or painted on the vessel in contrasting color to the background.

    (c) * * *

    (1) The owner or operator of a vessel for which a permit has been issued under § 635.4 and that uses handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline, or gillnet, must display the vessel's name, registration number, or Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit number on each float attached to a handline, buoy gear, or harpoon, and on the terminal floats and high-flyers (if applicable) on a longline or gillnet used by the vessel. The vessel's name or number must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height in block letters or Arabic numerals in a color that contrasts with the background color of the float or high-flyer.

    6. In § 635.8, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) and (c)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
    § 635.8 Workshops.

    (a) * * *

    (1) Both the owner and operator of a vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet gear must be certified by NMFS, or its designee, as having completed a workshop on the safe handling, release, and identification of protected species before a shark or swordfish LAP, pursuant to § 635.4(e) and (f), is renewed. For the purposes of this section, it is a rebuttable presumption that a vessel fishes with longline or gillnet gear if: Longline or gillnet gear is onboard the vessel; logbook reports indicate that longline or gillnet gear was used on at least one trip in the preceding year; or, in the case of a permit transfer to new owners that occurred less than a year ago, logbook reports indicate that longline or gillnet gear was used on at least one trip since the permit transfer.

    (3) The owner of a vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet gear, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is required to possess on board the vessel a valid protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshop certificate issued to that vessel owner. A copy of a valid protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshop certificate issued to the vessel owner for a vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet gear must be included in the application package to renew or obtain a shark or swordfish LAP.

    (c) * * *

    (2) If a vessel fishes with longline or gillnet gear as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the vessel owner may not renew a shark or swordfish LAP, issued pursuant to § 635.4(e) or (f), without submitting a valid protected species workshop certificate with the permit renewal application. (3) A vessel that fishes with longline or gillnet gear as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and that has been, or should be, issued a valid LAP pursuant to § 635.4(e) or (f), may not fish unless a valid protected species safe handling, release, and identification workshop certificate has been issued to both the owner and operator of that vessel.

    7. In § 635.9, revise paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
    § 635.9 Electronic monitoring.

    (e) * * *

    (4) Completion of trip. Within 48 hours of completing a fishing trip, the vessel owner or operator must mail the removable EM system hard drive(s) containing all data to NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor, according to instructions provided by NMFS. The vessel owner or operator is responsible for using shipping materials suitable to protect the hard drives (e.g., bubble wrap), tracking the package, and including a self-addressed mailing label for the next port of call so replacement hard drives can be mailed back to the vessel owner or operator. Prior to departing on a subsequent trip, the vessel owner or operator must install a replacement EM system hard drive(s) to enable data collection and video recording. The vessel owner or operator is responsible for contacting NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor if they have requested but not received a replacement hard drive(s) and for informing NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor of any lapse in the hard drive management procedures described in the VMP.

    8. In § 635.14, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 635.14 Performance metrics.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Bluefin tuna interactions performance metric. The basis for the bluefin tuna interactions performance metric is the ratio of the number of bluefin tuna interactions (i.e., the number of fish landed, discarded dead, and discarded alive) to the total weight of designated target species landings (in pounds). For the purposes of this section, the designated target species are swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher sharks. A relatively low bluefin tuna interaction to designated species ratio (`bluefin tuna ratio') indicates that the vessel has successfully avoided catching bluefin tuna while fishing with pelagic longline gear in the performance metric period.

    9. In § 635.15, revise paragraphs (c)(3)(iv), (k) introductory text, and (k)(4)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 635.15 Individual bluefin tuna quotas.

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Temporary prohibition of leasing IBQ allocation. No leasing of IBQ allocation is permitted between 6 p.m. eastern time on December 31 of one year and 2 p.m. eastern time on January 1 of the next year. This period is necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts, and update IBQ shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year.

    (k) Initial IBQ shares. During year one of implementation of the IBQ Program described in this section, NMFS will issue IBQ shares to eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP holders, as specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. New entrants to the pelagic longline fishery would need to obtain an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP, as well as other required LAPs, as described under § 635.4(l), and would need to lease IBQ allocations per paragraph (c) of this section if the LAPs acquired did not qualify for an initial IBQ share.

    (4) * * *

    (iii) Items subject to IAD and appeal. The only items subject to an IAD or appeal are: Initial IBQ share eligibility based on ownership of an active vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP combined with the required shark and swordfish LAPs; the accuracy of NMFS records regarding that vessel's amount of designated species landings and/or bluefin interactions; and correct assignment of target species landings and bluefin interactions to the vessel owner/permit holder. As described under paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the IBQ share formulas are based upon historical data associated with a permitted vessel. Because vessels may have changed ownership or permits may have been transferred during 2006 through 2012, the current owner of a permitted vessel may also appeal on the basis of historical changes in vessel ownership or permit transfers. Appeals based on hardship factors (e.g., illness of vessel owner, divorce, etc.) will not be considered.

    10. In § 635.19, revise paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
    § 635.19 Authorized gears.

    (e) * * *

    (4) Except for persons aboard a vessel that has been issued a directed, incidental, or handgear swordfish LAP, a Swordfish General Commercial permit, an Incidental HMS squid trawl permit, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit under § 635.4, no person may fish for North Atlantic swordfish with, or possess a North Atlantic swordfish taken by, any gear other than handline or rod and reel.

    11. In § 635.20, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 635.20 Size limits.

    (b) BFT size classes. If the head of a BFT is no longer attached, the size class of the BFT shall be determined using pectoral fin curved fork length (PFCFL) multiplied by a conversion factor of 1.35. The CFL, as determined by conversion of the PFCFL, will be the sole criterion for determining the size class of a beheaded BFT. The conversion factor may be adjusted after consideration of additional scientific information and fish measurement data, and will be made effective by filing notification of the adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

    12. In § 635.21, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(3) and (4), (c)(5)(ii)(C)(1), (c)(5)(iii)(A), (c)(5)(iii)(B) introductory text, (c)(5)(iv), (d)(1)(iii)(D), (d)(2)(ii), and (g)(1) through (3) to read as follows:
    § 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

    (b) * * *

    (1) All vessels that have pelagic or bottom longline gear onboard and that have been issued, or are required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must possess inside the wheelhouse the document provided by NMFS entitled “Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with Minimal Injury,” and must also post inside the wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS.

    (c) * * *

    (3) A vessel that has been issued, or is required to have been issued, a LAP under this part may fish with pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras gear restricted area described in paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section, provided the vessel has been determined by NMFS to be “qualified,” (for the relevant year) using the performance metrics described in § 635.14.

    (4) In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic longline gear may not be fished or deployed from a vessel issued or required to have been issued a LAP under this part with live bait affixed to the hooks; and, a person aboard a vessel issued or required to have been issued a LAP under this part that has pelagic longline gear on board may not possess live baitfish, maintain live baitfish in any tank or well on board the vessel, or set up or attach an aeration or water circulation device in or to any such tank or well. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).

    (5) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (C) * * *

    (1) Non-boated turtles should be brought close to the boat and provided with time to calm down. Then, it must be determined whether or not the hook can be removed without causing further injury. A front flipper or flippers of the turtle must be secured with an approved turtle control device from the list specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section.

    (iii) * * *

    (A) Gangion length. The length of any gangion on vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board and that have been issued, or are required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be at least 10 percent longer than any floatline length if the total length of any gangion plus the total length of any floatline is less than 100 meters.

    (B) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels fishing outside of the NED gear restricted area, as defined at § 635.2, that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are limited, at all times, to possessing on board and/or using only whole finfish and/or squid bait, and the following types and sizes of fishing hooks:

    (iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear. NMFS will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication an initial list of required sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear that NMFS has approved as meeting the minimum design standards specified under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. Other devices proposed for use, such as line clippers or cutters or dehookers, as specified under paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (C), (G), and (H) through (K) of this section, must be approved as meeting the minimum design standards before being used. NMFS will examine new devices, as they become available, to determine if they meet the minimum design standards, and will file with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any new devices that are approved as meeting the standards.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: 32°9.65′ N lat., 79°9.2′ W long.; 32°7.155′ N lat., 79°5.595′ W long.; 32°2.36′ N lat., 79°9.975′ W long.; 32°5.04′ N lat., 79°13.575′ W long.

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Handling and release requirements. Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, as required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtle as stated in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This mitigation gear should also be employed to disengage any hooked or entangled species of prohibited sharks as listed under heading D, Prohibited Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part, any hooked or entangled species of sharks that exceed the retention limits as specified in § 635.24(a), and any hooked or entangled smalltooth sawfish. In addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is caught, the fish should be kept in the water while maintaining water flow over the gills and the fish should be examined for research tags. All smalltooth sawfish must be released in a manner that will ensure maximum probability of survival, but without removing the fish from the water or any research tags from the fish.

    (g) * * *

    (1) Persons fishing with gillnet gear must comply with the provisions implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, and any other relevant Take Reduction Plan set forth in §§ 229.32 through 229.35 of this title. If a listed whale is taken, the vessel operator must cease fishing operations immediately and contact NMFS as required under part 229 of this title.

    (2) While fishing with a drift gillnet, a vessel issued or required to be issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP and/or a Federal commercial smoothhound permit must conduct net checks at least every 2 hours to look for and remove any sea turtles, marine mammals, Atlantic sturgeon, or smalltooth sawfish, and the drift gillnet must remain attached to at least one vessel at one end, except during net checks. Smalltooth sawfish must not be removed from the water while being removed from the net.

    (3) While fishing with a sink gillnet, vessels issued or required to be issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark LAP and/or a Federal commercial smoothhound permit must limit the soak time of the sink gillnet gear to no more than 24 hours, measured from the time the sink gillnet first enters the water to the time it is completely removed from the water. Smalltooth sawfish must not be removed from the water while being removed from the net.

    13. In § 635.22, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (5), (d), and (f) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 635.22 Recreational retention limits.

    (c) * * *

    (1) The recreational retention limit for sharks applies to any person who fishes in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark vessel permit under § 635.4. The retention limit can change depending on the species being caught and the size limit under which they are being caught as specified under § 635.20(e). If a commercial Atlantic shark quota is closed under § 635.28(b), the recreational retention limit for sharks and no sale provision in paragraph (a) of this section may be applied to persons aboard a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark vessel permit under § 635.4(e), only if that vessel has also been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement under § 635.4(b) and is engaged in a for-hire fishing trip. A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under § 635.4 may be required to use non-offset, corrodible circle hooks as specified in § 635.21(f) and (k) in order to retain sharks per the retention limits specified in this section.

    (5) Sharks listed in Table 1 of appendix A to this part that are not listed in this section, must be released by persons aboard a vessel that has not been issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark vessel permit under § 635.4(e).

    (d) Yellowfin tuna. Three yellowfin tunas per person per day may be retained. Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than three yellowfin tuna per person may be possessed on board a vessel. The recreational retention limit for yellowfin tuna applies to a person who fishes in any manner, except to a person aboard a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas vessel permit under § 635.4(d). The recreational retention limit for yellowfin tuna applies to persons, including captain and crew, aboard a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat permit under § 635.4(b) only when the vessel is engaged in a for-hire trip.

    (f) North Atlantic swordfish. The recreational retention limits for North Atlantic swordfish apply to persons who fish in any manner, except to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement under § 635.4(b) and only when on a non for-hire trip; a directed, incidental or handgear swordfish LAP under § 635.4(e) and (f); a Swordfish General Commercial permit under § 635.4(f); an Incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit under § 635.4(n); or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small boat permit under § 635.4(o).

    14. In § 635.23, revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) to read as follows:
    § 635.23 Retention limits for bluefin tuna.

    (a) * * *

    (2) On an RFD, no person aboard a vessel that has been issued an Atlantic Tunas General category permit may fish for, possess, retain, land, or sell a BFT of any size class, and catch-and-release or tag-and-release fishing for BFT under § 635.26(a) is not authorized from such vessel. On days other than RFDs, and when the General category is open, large medium or giant BFT may be caught and landed from such vessels up to the daily retention limit in effect for that day. NMFS will annually publish a schedule of RFDs in the Federal Register.

    (4) To provide for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT, NMFS may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero (on RFDs) to a maximum of five per vessel. Such increase or decrease will be based on the criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS will adjust the daily retention limit specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section by filing an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. In no case shall such adjustment be effective less than 3 calendar days after the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register, except that previously designated RFDs may be waived effective upon closure of the General category fishery so that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category may conduct tag-and-release fishing for BFT under § 635.26(a).

    15. In § 635.27, revise the paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text, (c)(1)(i)(A) and (B), and (d)(1) to read as follows:
    § 635.27 Quotas.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Commercial quotas. The commercial quotas for sharks specified in this section apply to all sharks harvested from the management unit, regardless of where harvested. Sharks caught and landed commercially from state waters, even by fishermen without Federal shark permits, must be counted against the appropriate commercial quota. Any of the base quotas listed below, including regional and/or sub-regional base quotas, may be adjusted per paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Any sharks landed commercially as “unclassified” will be counted against the appropriate quota based on the species composition calculated from data collected by observers on non-research trips and/or dealer data. No prohibited sharks, including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, which are listed under heading D, Prohibited Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part, may be retained except as authorized under § 635.32. For the purposes of this section, the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined as a line beginning on the east coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat., proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region. Any water and land to the north and east of that boundary, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, is considered to be within the Atlantic region.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) A swordfish from the North Atlantic stock caught prior to the directed fishery closure by a vessel for which a directed swordfish LAP, a swordfish handgear LAP, an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, a Swordfish General Commercial open access permit, or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement (and only when on a non for-hire trip) has been issued or is required to have been issued is counted against the directed fishery quota. The total baseline annual fishery quota, before any adjustments, is 2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing year. Consistent with applicable ICCAT recommendations, a portion of the total baseline annual fishery quota may be used for transfers to another ICCAT contracting party. The annual directed category quota is calculated by adjusting for over- or under harvests, dead discards, any applicable transfers, the incidental category quota, the reserve quota and other adjustments as needed, and is subdivided into two equal semiannual periods: One for January 1 through June 30, and the other for July 1 through December 31.

    (B) A swordfish from the North Atlantic swordfish stock landed by a vessel for which an incidental swordfish LAP, an incidental HMS Squid Trawl permit, an HMS Angling permit, or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit (and only when on a for-hire trip) has been issued, or a swordfish from the North Atlantic stock caught after the effective date of a closure of the directed fishery from a vessel for which a swordfish directed LAP, a swordfish handgear LAP, an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, a Swordfish General Commercial open access permit, or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a commercial sale endorsement (when on a non for-hire trip) has been issued, is counted against the incidental category quota. The annual incidental category quota is 300 mt dw for each fishing year.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Unless adjusted under paragraph (d)(2) of this section or by an ICCAT recommendation, the annual landings limit is 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin, combined. Annual landings of roundscale spearfish are also included to the blue and white marlin annual landings limit. Should the U.S. recreational Atlantic marlin landing limit be adjusted by an ICCAT recommendation, NMFS will file a notice identifying the new landing limit with the Office of the Federal Register for publication prior to the start of the next fishing year or as early as possible.

    16. In § 635.28, revise paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (b)(1)(iv), (b)(7), (c)(3), and (d) to read as follows:
    § 635.28 Fishery closures.

    (a) * * *

    (3) When the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is reached, projected to be reached, or exceeded, or when there is high uncertainty regarding the estimated or documented levels of bluefin tuna catch, NMFS will file a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. On and after the effective date and time of such action, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the closure action, vessels that have been issued or are required to have a LAP under § 635.4 and that have pelagic longline gear onboard are prohibited from leaving port, regardless of the amount of bluefin tuna quota allocation remaining to each vessel or the amount of fishery quota remaining for other species. In addition to providing notice in the Federal Register, NMFS will also notify vessels of any closures and their timing via VMS and may use other electronic methods, such as email. Vessels would be required to return to port prior to the closure date/time. When considering whether to close or reopen the Longline category quota, NMFS may consider the following factors:

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) The species is a prohibited species as listed under heading D, Prohibited Species of Table 1 of appendix A to this part; or

    (7) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess, retain, land, or sell sharks.

    (c) * * *

    (3) Bluefin tuna Longline category closure. If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess or land any North Atlantic swordfish or bluefin tuna.

    (d) Northern albacore tuna. When the annual fishery quota specified in § 635.27(e) is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS will file a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. When the fishery for Northern albacore tuna is closed, Northern albacore tuna may not be retained. If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess or land any Northern albacore tuna.

    17. In § 635.31, revise paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
    § 635.31 Restrictions on sale and purchase.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may first receive a swordfish harvested from the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel that has a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued under this part, and only if the dealer has submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting requirements of § 635.5(b)(1)(ii). Atlantic swordfish dealers may first receive a swordfish from a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been closed, as specified in § 635.28(a)(3).

    18. In § 635.34, revise the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 635.34 Adjustment of management measures.

    (c) NMFS may add species to the prohibited shark species group specified in heading D, Prohibited Sharks, of Table 1 of appendix A to this part if, after considering the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, the species is determined to meet at least two of the criteria. Alternatively, NMFS may remove species from the prohibited shark species group and place them in the appropriate shark species group in Table 1 of appendix A if, after considering the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section, NMFS determines the species only meets one criterion.

    19. In § 635.40, revise the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1) and remove and reserve paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 635.40 Restrictions to enhance conservation.

    (b) * * *

    (1) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section and section 971d(6)(a) of ATCA, a shipment of fish in any form of the species under regulation or under investigation by ICCAT offered for entry, directly or indirectly, from a country named in a finding filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication under paragraph (a) of this section is eligible for entry if the shipment is accompanied by a completed ATCA COE attached to the invoice certifying that the fish in the shipment:

    20. In § 635.71 revise paragraphs (a)(53), (b)(20), (36) through (38), and (40), and (e)(10) and (11) to read as follows:
    § 635.71 Restrictions on sale and purchase.

    (a) * * *

    (53) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or land an Atlantic swordfish using, or captured on, “buoy gear” as defined at § 635.2, unless the vessel owner has been issued a swordfish directed limited access 125 permit or a swordfish handgear LAP in accordance with § 635.4(f) or a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit in accordance with § 635.4(o).

    (b) * * *

    (20) Approach to within 100 yd (91.5 m) of the cork line of a purse seine net used by a vessel fishing for Atlantic tuna, or for a purse seine vessel to approach to within 100 yd (91.5 m) of a vessel actively fishing for Atlantic tuna, except that two vessels that have Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category LAPs may approach closer to each other.

    (36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard, and that has been issued, or is required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, except when green-stick gear is onboard, as specified at § 635.21(c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(B)(3).

    (37) Use or deploy J-hooks with pelagic longline gear from a vessel that has been issued, or is required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, as specified in § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B).

    (38) As specified in § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(3), possess more than 20 J-hooks onboard a vessel that has been issued, or is required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, when possessing onboard both pelagic longline gear and green-stick gear as defined in § 635.2.

    (40) Possess, use, or deploy J-hooks smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm), when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from the eye to any part of the hook, when fishing with or possessing green-stick gear onboard a vessel that has been issued, or is required to have, a swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, as specified at § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(3) or (c)(2)(vii)(A).

    (e) * * *

    (10) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or land an Atlantic swordfish using, or captured on, “buoy gear” as defined at § 635.2, unless, as specified in § 635.19(e)(3), the vessel owner has been issued a swordfish directed LAP or a swordfish handgear LAP in accordance with § 635.4(f) or a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit in accordance with § 635.4(o).

    (11) As the owner of a vessel permitted, or required to be permitted, in the swordfish directed, swordfish handgear LAP category, or issued a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit and utilizing buoy gear, to possess or deploy more than 35 individual floatation devices, to deploy more than 35 individual buoy gears per vessel, or to deploy buoy gear without affixed monitoring equipment, as specified at § 635.21(h).

    [FR Doc. 2018-14916 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 137 Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitation item (ALI) document, which requires more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0168, dated September 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.

    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    Previously, EASA issued AD 2016-0092 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2017-25-04, Amendment 39-19118 (82 FR 58098, December 11, 2017) (“AD 2017-25-04”)], to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 03. The new ALS Part 3 Revision 05 (hereafter referred to as “the ALS” in this [EASA] AD) includes new and/or more restrictive requirements and extends the applicability to model A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-251N, A321-253N and A321-271N aeroplanes.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0092, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.

    The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0554.

    Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2017-25-04

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2017-25-04. Rather, we have determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address the changes in the MCAI. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2017-25-04.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017. The service information describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations, including updated inspections and intervals to be incorporated into the maintenance or inspection program. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.”

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.

    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.

    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.

    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including the current revision in effect, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).

    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS revision defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design. Note: When a new airplane is delivered with a later ALS revision, the revised ALS must correct the unsafe condition associated with an existing AD, as specified in 14 CFR 21.21(b)(2).

    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision (i.e., a later revision) into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the earlier ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.

    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.

    This proposed AD therefore would apply to Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320 series airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

    Difference Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the ALS inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,250 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0554; Product Identifier 2018-NM-064-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2017-25-04, Amendment 39-19118 (82 FR 58098, December 11, 2017) (“AD 2017-25-04”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before April 6, 2017.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -253N, and -271N airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision of an airworthiness limitation item (ALI) document, which requires more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address a safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017 (“ALS Part 3 CMR, R5”). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, is at the applicable time specified in ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (h) Terminating Actions for AD 2017-25-04

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2017-25-04.

    (i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (ii) AMOCs applicable previously for AD 2017-25-04 or AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014) that require incorporation of ALS Part 3 CMR, R5, are considered approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0168, dated September 7, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0554.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3223.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 19, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-13781 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0582; Product Identifier 2018-NM-085-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); removal of airworthiness directive (AD).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to remove AD 93-14-19, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 93-14-19 requires inspections for disbonding of the trailing edge wedge of the leading edge slat; and repair, if necessary. Since we issued AD 93-14-19, an updated stability and control analysis showed that the worst-case scenario of a trailing edge wedge disbond in-flight would not adversely affect the controllability of the airplane. Accordingly, we propose to remove AD 93-14-19.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0582; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposal, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0582; Product Identifier 2018-NM-085-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We issued AD 93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177, August 3, 1993) (“AD 93-14-19”), for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD 93-14-19 requires visual inspections and either “Coin Tap” inspections or ultrasonic inspections for disbonding of the trailing edge wedge of the leading edge slat, and repair, if necessary. AD 93-14-19 resulted from reports of wedge damage or disbonding; in two cases the damage resulted in loss of a portion of the trailing edge wedge. The trailing edge wedge disbonding was caused by moisture ingression at the wedge end seals and in the skin bonds along the spar chords. Moisture in the aluminum honeycomb core would cause corrosion that would eventually result in disbonding between the skin and the aluminum honeycomb core. We issued AD 93-14-19 to prevent the loss of a trailing edge wedge, which could result in reduced maneuver margins, reduced speed margins to stall, and unexpected roll before stall warning, all of which would adversely affect the controllability of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 93-14-19 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 93-14-19, an updated stability and control analysis showed that the worst-case scenario of a trailing edge wedge disbond in-flight would not adversely affect the controllability of the airplane. Simulation analysis shows that the airplane has sufficient lateral control up to the stick shaker to counter the rolling moment caused by a trailing edge wedge loss, at all flap settings. Therefore, the unsafe condition no longer exists on these products worldwide.

    FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that AD 93-14-19 must be removed. Accordingly, this proposed AD would remove AD 93-14-19. Removal of AD 93-14-19 would not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

    Related Costs of Compliance

    AD 93-14-19 affects approximately 180 airplanes of U.S. registry. The estimated costs for the actions required by AD 93-14-19 for U.S. operators is $79,200, or $440 per airplane. Removing AD 93-14-19 would eliminate those costs.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority.

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD 93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177, August 3, 1993), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0582; Product Identifier 2018-NM-085-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD removes AD 93-14-19, Amendment 39-8644 (58 FR 41177, August 3, 1993).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767 series airplanes, certificated in any category, line numbers 1 through 488 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3524; email: [email protected]

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 22, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14398 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0199; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Belfast, ME AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, ME, to accommodate airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of the Belfast non-directional radio beacon and cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of this airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2018-0199; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2018-0199 and Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number.) You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0199; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface within an 9.4-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Belfast Municipal Airport, Belfast, NH, due to the decommissioning of the Belfast NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach. The airspace redesign would enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE ME E5 Belfast, ME [Amended] Belfast Municipal Airport, ME (Lat. 44°24′33″ N, long. 69°00′43″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.4-mile radius of Belfast Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 10, 2018. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15153 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 301 [REG-102951-16] RIN 1545-BN36 Filing Requirements for Information Returns Required on Magnetic Media (Electronically); Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains a correction to notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-102951-16) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 31, 2018 (83 FR 24948). The proposed regulations are relating to amending rules for determining whether information returns must be filed by using magnetic media (electronically).

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing for the notice of proposed rulemaking at 83 FR 24948, May 31, 2018, are still being accepted and must be received by July 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Michael Hara at (202) 317-6845; concerning the submission of comments and request for a public hearing, Regina L. Johnson, (202) 317-5177 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking that is subject of this document is under section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Need for Correction

    As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-102951-16) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

    Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-102951-16) that is subject to FR Doc. 2018-11749, beginning on page 24948 in the issue of May 31, 2018, make the following correction in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. On page 24949 in the first column, under the caption “Explanation of Provisions”, the last line from the bottom of the second full paragraph, the language “§ 301.6011-2 (c)(1)(iv), Example 4.” is corrected to read “§ 301.6011-2 (b)(4).”.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2018-15164 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0343] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, S99 Alford Street Bridge—Emergency Grid Replacement Project, Mystic River, Charlestown and Everett, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters within 150-yards of the S99 Alford Street Bridge, at mile 1.4 on the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett, Massachusetts from October 1, 2018 through April 30, 2019. The safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards created during the emergency replacement of the steel grid deck on all four bascule spans of the S99 Alford Street Bridge. This proposed rule would prohibit vessels and persons from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Boston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0343 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mark Cutter, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Boston, telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected]

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

    On April 6, 2018, the City of Boston notified the Coast Guard that the Massachusetts Department of Transportation's Highways Division will be conducting emergency repairs to the S99 Alford Street Drawbridge at mile 1.4 on the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett Massachusetts from May 2018 through the summer of 2019. The emergency repairs consist of replacing the steel grid bridge decking on all four bascule spans. To complete these repairs by the summer of 2019 and still maintain regional transportation, each side span of the bascule bridge will need to be closed at different times. To make the necessary repairs, workers will need to use barges in the waterway underneath the bridge span to access the side spans. Bridge span closures and use of the waterway underneath the bridge to effectuate the repairs are scheduled to commence on October 1, 2018, and be completed by April 30, 2019.

    Hazards from bridge span closures and use of the waterway underneath include heavy lift operations, falling equipment and materials, and construction vessels. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge repairs would be a safety concern for anyone in or on Mystic River waters within 150-yards of the bridge. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Boston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will notify the public through the Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee meetings, Boston's Port Operators Group meetings, and Local Notice to Mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) fourteen (14) days in advance of the commencement of the Safety Zone. If the project is completed before April 30, 2019, enforcement of the safety zone will be suspended and notice given to the public to the greatest extent possible.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect personnel, vessels and the marine environment from potential hazards created during repairs on the S99 Alford Street Bridge, at mile 1.4 on the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett Massachusetts. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking is under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone starting at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2018, and to make it effective to 11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2019. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within 150-yards of the S99 Alford Street Bridge, at mile 1.4 on the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett Massachusetts. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, the maritime public, construction workers, and these navigable waters during the repairs on the S99 Alford Street Bridge over the main channel of the Mystic River. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Boston or a designated representative.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. We expect the adverse economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal since we will provide ample notice of the safety zone effective dates and vessels will be able to enter safety zone when construction equipment is not occupying the channel. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimal because boating season for vessels on the Mystic River usually concludes around mid-October and consequently the amount of traffic in this waterway during the effective period for the safety zone is limited.

    This safety zone is of similar dimension and a shorter duration to the one established in 2011 (73916 FR/Vol. 77, NO. 239) for the original rehabilitation of the bridge. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    Notification of the emergency repairs to the Alford Street Drawbridge and the associated safety zone will be made to mariners through the Massachusetts Bay Harbor Safety Committee meetings, Boston's Port Operators Group meetings, and Local Notice to Mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Safety Marine Information Broadcast via marine channel 16 (VHF-FM) fourteen (14) days in advance of the commencement of the Safety Zone. The rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone when the channel is not being occupy by construction equipment.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone extending 150 yards around a bridge to complete emergency repairs to the S99 Alford Street Bridge during a seven month period when boating traffic is minimal on the Mystic River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a new § 165.T01-0343 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0343 Safety Zone, S99 Alford Street Bridge—Emergency Grid Replacement Project, Mystic River, Charlestown and Everett MA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett, Massachusetts from surface to bottom, within 150-yards of the S99 Alford Street Bridge, at mile 1.4 on the Mystic River between Charlestown and Everett, Massachusetts.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section—

    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, petty officer, or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    Official patrol vessels means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Boston to enforce this section.

    (c) Enforcement period. This section is enforceable 24 hours a day from 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2018, through 11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2019. When enforced as deemed necessary by the COTP Boston, vessels will be prohibited from entering this safety zone during the emergency grid replacement on the bridge.

    (d) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply:

    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated representatives. However, any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone must comply with the directions and orders of the COTP Boston or the COTP's designated representatives.

    (2) To obtain permission required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP Boston or a COTP designated representative via Channel 16 (VHF-FM) or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center).

    (3) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Eric. J. Doucette, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15183 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 200 RIN 1810-AB33 [Docket ID: ED-2016-OESE-0056] Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged-Supplement Not Supplant; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is withdrawing the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pertaining to the supplement not supplant requirements under title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

    DATES:

    As of July 17, 2018, the proposed regulations published on September 6, 2016, at 81 FR 61148 are withdrawn.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Rooney, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3W202, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5514. Email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 1118(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, contains a new provision for demonstrating compliance with the title I, part A supplement not supplant requirement. Pursuant to section 1601(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA, prior to issuing any regulations that implement the supplement not supplant requirement, the Department must engage in negotiated rulemaking. The Department conducted negotiated rulemaking on draft supplement not supplant regulations in spring 2016 but the negotiating committee did not reach consensus.

    Subsequently, on September 6, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register an NPRM (81 FR 61148) proposing regulations relating to the supplement not supplant requirement in title I, part A of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In January 2017, the Department announced that it would not publish final regulations on this requirement. As a result, the Department withdraws its NPRM. We note that this is considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771. Because the Department did not publish final regulations, this withdrawal will have no effect on existing regulations, which do not include provisions implementing the title I, part A supplement not supplant requirement.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and the NPRM in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Frank Brogan, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15259 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0116; FRL-9980-80—Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Revisions to VOC Definitions and Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 13, 2017, the State of Georgia through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), submitted revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve SIP revisions, which modify the State's air quality regulations as incorporated into the SIP. Specifically, the revisions pertain to definition changes, including the modification of the definition of “volatile organic compounds,” (VOC) and changes to the State's air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (both PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), lead (Pb) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve these provisions of the SIP revisions because the State has demonstrated that these changes are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0116 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]

    I. Background

    In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve changes into the Georgia SIP, submitted by the State on November 13, 2017. The submission revises Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions” by adding t-Butyl acetate (also known as tertiary butyl acetate or TBAC) and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane to the list of organic compounds having negligible photochemical reactivity. The definition of VOC is also being updated by removing the recordkeeping requirements for t-Butyl acetate. Finally, the definition of VOC is being revised to include chemical names to clarify previous exemptions. EPA is also proposing to approve changes into the Georgia SIP to amend Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), “Ambient Air Standards,” by updating Georgia's air quality standard to be consistent with the NAAQS. The submittal by the State can be found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and is further summarized below. Also on November 29, 2017, EPD submitted a separate SIP revision to make changes to Rule 391-3-1-.03(6), “Exemption” under Permits and Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(1), “General Requirements” under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). EPA will address these changes in a separate notice. Additionally, EPD withdrew from EPA's consideration, Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)2(ix), “Regulated NSR pollutant” under PSD, and Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(16), “Additional Provisions for PM2.5 Non-Attainment Areas” under Permits.1

    1 The State withdrew Rule 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)2(ix), “Regulated NSR pollutant” and Rule 391-3-1-.03(8)(c)(16), “Additional Provisions for PM2.5 Non-Attainment Areas” on December 1, 2016, and July 26, 2017, respectively. The State also acknowledges this in the response to comment of the pre-hearing in the November 13, 2017, submittal. The information is in the Docket.

    II. EPA's Analysis of Georgia's SIP Revisions a. Revisions to Definitions

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments implement rules to limit the amount of certain VOC and NOX that can be released into the atmosphere. VOC have different levels of reactivity; they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent. Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to define the meaning of “VOC,” and hence what compounds shall be treated as VOC for regulatory purposes.

    EPA determines whether a given carbon compound has “negligible” reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. It has been EPA's policy that compounds of carbon with negligible reactivity need not be regulated to reduce ozone and should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC. See 42 FR 35314 (July 8, 1977), 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005). EPA lists these compounds in its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called “negligibly reactive.” EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add or delete compounds.

    On November 29, 2004,2 and August 1, 2016,3 EPA issued final rules revising the definition of VOC by adding new compounds, t-Butyl acetate and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane, to the list of those considered to be negligibly reactive compounds, and on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9339), EPA issued a final rule removing recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate.4 The State's November 13, 2017, SIP revision adds t-Butyl acetate and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane to the list of negligibly reactive compounds to be consistent with federal and other similar SIP-approved regulations. They are excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that they make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. The revision also removes the recordkeeping requirements for t-Butyl acetate and includes the addition of certain chemical names to clarify previous exemptions: Dichloromethane; HFE-7100; HFE-7200; HCOOCH3; and HFE-7300. EPA is proposing to approve this revision because it is consistent with the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).

    2 In EPA's November 29, 2004, final rulemaking, the Agency adds t-Butyl acetate to the list of excluded compounds from the definition of VOCs. See 69 FR 69298.

    3 In EPA's August 1, 2016, final rulemaking, the Agency adds 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoro-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy) ethane to the list of excluded compounds from the definition of VOCs. See 81 FR 50330.

    4 EPA removed these requirements in part because there was no evidence that TBAC was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation and because the data that had been collected under these requirements had proven to be of limited utility in judging the cumulative impacts of exempted compounds. See 81 FR 9339.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The State's addition of certain chemical names is approvable under section 110(l) because the revision merely clarifies previous exemptions. The State's addition of exemptions from the definition of VOCs, and the removal of recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate 5 are approvable under section 110(l) because they reflect changes to Federal regulations based on findings that the exempted compounds are negligibly reactive, and additionally for t-Butyl acetate, that there was no evidence it was being used at levels that cause concern for ozone formation, and the data that had been collected under the recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements had proven to be of limited utility in judging it's cumulative impact.

    5 This current proposed rulemaking does not, and is not intended to, reopen any prior final EPA rulemaking or findings made therein, including EPA's 2004 final rule (69 FR 69298) and EPA's 2016 final rule (81 FR 9339).

    b. Updated NAAQS

    The November 13, 2017, SIP submission revises the State's ambient air quality standards to reflect the historical and current NAAQS for SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, O3, Pb, and NO2. Specifically, the revisions add provisions related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS to the State's regulations, and modify language in the regulations to provide clarity and consistency with the NAAQS.

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria—the science upon which the standards are based—and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50—National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. In this rule, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the revisions to the State of Georgia air quality regulations addressing Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), Ambient Air Standards, in the Georgia SIP, submitted by Georgia on November 13, 2017. Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) is amended by updating air quality standards to reflect the most recent NAAQS. The SIP submission amending the State of Georgia regulations to incorporate the most recent SO2, particulate matter (both PM2.5 and PM10), CO, O3, Pb and NO2 NAAQS can be found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and is summarized below.

    i. SO2

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, and revoked the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 75 FR 35520. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(b) to update its primary air quality standards for SO2 to be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2010, with the exception of Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(b)2 and 391-3-1-.02(4)(b)3.6 EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the SO2 NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    6 The former primary SO2 NAAQS set forth in 40 CFR 50.4 will continue to apply to an area until one year after the effective date of the designation of that area, pursuant to section 107 of the CAA, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS set forth in § 50.17. Therefore, Georgia is asking that EPA not act on the SO2 NAAQS in Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(b)2. and Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(b)3 until final designations are complete for all areas in Georgia for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    ii. PM

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations averaged over three years. EPA also promulgated a new annual primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 15.0 µg/m3, based on the annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years. See 62 FR 38652. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 µg/m3, based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations averaged over three years. At that same time, EPA revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS. See 71 FR 61144. On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 12 µg/m3, based on the annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years. See 78 FR 3085; January 15, 2013. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) to update its air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5 to be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 1997, 2006, and 2012. EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    iii. CO

    EPA initially established the NAAQS for CO on April 30, 1971. The standards were set at 9 parts per million (ppm), as an 8-hour average, and 35 ppm, as a 1-hour average, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. See 36 FR 8186. In 1985, EPA concluded its first periodic review of the criteria and standards for CO. EPA decided not to revise the existing primary standards and to revoke the secondary standard for CO. See 50 FR 37484 (September 13, 1985). On August 1, 1994, EPA concluded its second periodic review of the criteria and standards for CO by deciding that revisions to the CO NAAQS were not warranted at that time. Thus, the primary standards were retained at 9 ppm with an 8-hour averaging time, and 35 ppm with a 1-hour averaging time, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. See 59 FR 38906.7 On August 31, 2011, EPA issued a final rulemaking concluding that the CO NAAQS was still requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety and thus retained the CO NAAQS. See 76 FR 542494. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) to update its air quality standards for CO to be consistent with the current CO NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the CO NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    7 EPA initiated the next period review in 1997 but did not conduct rulemaking to complete the review.

    iv. O3

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a new 8-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at a level of 0.075 ppm (the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS), based on an annual fourth-highest maximum 8-hour concentration averaged over three years. See 73 FR 16436. On October 26, 2015, EPA promulgated a new primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at a level of 0.070 ppm (the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS), based on an annual fourth-highest maximum 8-hour concentration averaged over three years. See 80 FR 65292. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) to add the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2015. EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the ozone NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    v. Pb

    On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for Pb at a level of 0.15 μg/m3, based on a rolling 3-month average. See 73 FR 66964. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) to update its air quality standards for Pb to be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the Pb NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    vi. NO2

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. Accordingly, in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) to update its air quality standards for NO2 to be consistent with the NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2010. EPA is proposing to approve this change because it is consistent with the NO2 NAAQS as defined by EPA.

    EPA has reviewed the revisions to Rule 391-3-1-.02(4) in the November 13, 2017, SIP submission, including the NAAQS updates for SO2, PM10, PM2.5, CO, O3, Pb, and NO2, and has made the preliminary determination that these changes are consistent with the CAA. As mentioned above, EPA is proposing to approve these changes to the NAAQS into the Georgia SIP.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions,” effective July 20, 2017, which revises the definition of VOC; and Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), “Ambient Air Standards,” effective July 20, 2017, which revises the State's ambient air quality standards to be consistent with the NAAQS. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the State of Georgia's November 13, 2017, SIP revisions identified in section II above. These changes are consistent with the CAA.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    • 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 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 2, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15147 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9980-73—Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site (Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. This site is also known as the Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits Site. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida (State), through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operations and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002 by one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Email: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, [email protected]

    (3) Mail: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    (4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Attention: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch. Hours of Operation: Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404-562-8819.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    (1) USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8909, Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Contact Tina Terrell 404-562-8835; and

    (2) West Regional Jacksonville Public Library, 1425 Chaffee Rd. S, Jacksonville, FL 32221, Monday-Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Sunday CLOSED.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8819, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    The EPA announces its intent to delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the 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), the 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, the EPA conducts five-year reviews (FYRs) 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. The EPA conducts such FYRs even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The State, through the FDEP, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the responsiveness summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site's information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site is an abandoned waste oil sludge disposal facility located in Whitehouse, about 10 miles west of downtown Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The Site occupies seven acres west of Chaffee Road, about four tenths of a mile north of U.S. Highway 90. Between 1958 and 1968, Allied Petro Product, Inc. (Allied), disposed of contaminated acidic waste oil sludge from their oil reclaiming operations in seven unlined pits on the Site. Allied operated the Site as a repository for waste oil sludge and acidic oil re-refinery byproducts from 1958 until 1968. The waste oil recovery process used an acid-clay process to form corrosive by-products including waste-acid tar and spent acidic clays. Allied constructed the first pits in 1958 to dispose of waste oil sludge and acid from its oil reclaiming process, and by 1968 the company had constructed and filled seven pits. The EPA later found that the waste contained Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals, which impacted soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment. Allied went bankrupt in 1968 and the pits containing wastes were abandoned; the City of Jacksonville assumed ownership of the Site by tax default.

    In 1968, the diking around pit number 7 ruptured and spilled waste into the McGirts Creek tributary and neighboring private properties. The pit was backfilled following this incident. The City of Jacksonville recognized the need to take action to prevent further spread of contamination. The Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch began building water-oil separators with limestone filters at the Site, but was not able to finish construction due to budget issues. Wastewater from the pits continued to be released into the adjacent wetland area and the McGirts Creek tributary. These releases resulted in contamination of surface water and sediment. In 1976, the Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch implemented a dike wall reconstruction project at the Site when an estimated 200,000 gallons of waste oil spilled on the adjacent land and creek. On June 29, 1976, the EPA Region 4's Environmental Emergency Branch was contacted by the City of Jacksonville following the 200,000-gallon oil spill. The EPA began the spill assessment and cleanup of McGirts Creek under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, spending about $200,000 in the process. The EPA, in conjunction with the City of Jacksonville, constructed a treatment system to drain the pits.

    After draining water from the pits, the Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch took measures to stabilize the ponds. Since the remaining viscous waste oil sludge would not support heavy construction equipment, the ponds were backfilled with selected construction debris, scrap lumber, trees, wood chips and non-degradable wastes. A three-inch layer of automobile shredder waste was placed on top of these materials. The liquid portion of the waste oil sludge was pumped off, mixed with a stabilizing agent, and then used as a backfill/sealer over the automobile shredder waste. The relatively impervious layer of stabilizing agent and oil was intended to prevent vertical percolation of rainwater. The stabilizing agent and oil mixture was covered with eight to twelve inches of clean earth (mostly sand). After the project ran out of stabilizing agent, local clay was substituted as a landfill capping material. The Site was then planted with local grasses and ditches were constructed to control drainage.

    In 1979, monitoring by the City of Jacksonville showed the continuing release of contaminants to surface water and groundwater which the City of Jacksonville attempted to address by covering the surface and sides of the pits and dike with six inches of low-permeability local clay, followed by twelve inches of topsoil. This cover was revegetated using local grasses. The drainage was modified to control leachate seepage into the ditches. The dikes around the pits were strengthened and drop structures were constructed to control flow velocity and erosion in the ditches. The modified drainage configuration diverted surface water away from the landfill, thus reducing the mechanism for contaminant transport. This second stabilization project was completed during the summer of 1980.

    On December 30,1982 (47 FR 58476), the Site was proposed for listing on the EPA's NPL. The Site's listing on the NPL was finalized on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40865). The Site ID is FLD980602767.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 1983, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), which is now referred to as the FDEP, completed a remedial investigation (RI) under a cooperative agreement with the EPA. The RI characterized Site wastes and the extent of contamination. The Site's RI showed contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment with numerous organic compounds, including PAHs and PCBs, and heavy metals. In 1985, the EPA completed a feasibility study (FS), which evaluated risk and remedial alternatives for the Site. The risk assessment indicated that the greater risk was posed by migration of contaminants into drinking water supplies. Several alternative remedies were considered: No action; no action with groundwater monitoring; excavation with variations that included a treatment or offsite disposal of soil, sludges, and sediment and treatment of groundwater; and excavation, extraction, and treatment supplemented by construction of a barrier wall to contain the remaining contaminated media and prevent its leaching into the groundwater and surface water.

    Ultimately, several remedies were required over time to address the contamination or prior remedy failures. The remedies were selected in a 1985 Record of Decision (ROD), revised in an amended ROD (AROD) in 1992, and then further revised in the 1998 AROD based on additional investigations and a treatability study. An Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was issued in 2001.

    Selected Remedies 1985 ROD

    Based on the findings of the 1985 RI/FS, the EPA issued a ROD on May 30, 1985. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) defined in the 1985 ROD included:

    1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the underlying aquitard.

    2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.

    3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.

    4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the hazardous pollutants offsite.

    5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and sediments.

    The remedy components included in the 1985 ROD were:

    1. Installation of a slurry wall around the Site, isolating the waste.

    2. Recovery and treatment of contaminated groundwater within the walled area, thus contributing to waste isolation.

    3. Removal of contaminated sediment from the northeast tributary of McGirts Creek and placement within the isolation area.

    4. Construction of a surface cap over the Site to reduce the flow of water into the walled area.

    The 1985 ROD did not provide a tabulation of specific remediation goals. However, the goals were generally defined to meet the FDER's drinking water standards and surface water quality criteria. Where no cleanup criteria had been established, the cleanup goals were set at background or minimal risk levels.

    1992 AROD

    The EPA began but suspended implementation of the 1985 remedy for several reasons, including failure of the cap, a determination that the groundwater treatment methodology was inappropriate for the Site, discovery that the analysis of the shallow aquifer was unreliable, and realization that the operations and maintenance costs were grossly underestimated. Moreover, in 1986, Congress amended CERCLA by passing the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which stressed the importance of permanent remedies. As a result, the EPA reevaluated the 1985 remedy and began to search for alternatives that would permanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume of hazardous substances at the Site. The EPA conducted additional studies between 1989 and 1992. These studies included a baseline risk assessment, a supplemental feasibility study, and a treatability study in 1991 to examine a treatment train of soils washing, biological treatment and stabilization. The studies led to the EPA's issuance of an AROD on June 16, 1992 (the 1992 AROD). Under the 1992 AROD, the cleanup objectives were to prevent current and future exposure to contaminated groundwater.

    The remedy components included in the 1992 AROD were:

    1. Excavation of contaminated waste pits.

    2. Separation of construction debris, stumps, etc., from contaminated soils and steam cleaning prior to offsite disposal.

    3. Volume reduction by soils washing.

    4. Biotreatment to biologically degrade wash water contaminants.

    5. Stabilization/solidification of biotreated material exceeding cleanup criteria.

    6. On-site disposal of washed soils and stabilization/solidification of contaminant fines and sludge.

    7. Extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater using activated carbon and chemical precipitation, with discharge to the northeast tributary of McGirts Creek.

    8. Installation and maintenance of a six-inch vegetative cover over the excavated area.

    9. Installation and maintenance of a fence around the Site during remedial activities.

    10. Implementation of institutional controls (ICs), including deed restrictions.

    The 1992 AROD included contingencies if groundwater recovery and treatment were determined to be ineffective. Contingencies included:

    1. Containment measures involving engineering controls or long-term gradient controls.

    2. Waiver of chemical-specific ARARs for the aquifer based on the technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant reduction.

    3. Institutional controls for groundwater.

    4. Continued monitoring of on-site and off-site wells.

    Cleanup goals were developed for soils and groundwater in the 1992 AROD. Following the signing of the 1992 AROD, the EPA issued special notice letters to initiate negotiations with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Because a settlement could not be reached, the EPA proceeded with a fund-lead remedial design. During the design phase for the 1992 AROD remedy, the EPA discovered most of the components of the treatment train identified for source materials would not work. For example, lead concentrations and pH levels encountered in the waste sludge would be toxic to bacteria, rendering biological treatment ineffective. In April 1994, the EPA and the PRPs, the Whitehouse Remedial Action Group (WRAG), signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) under which the PRPs conducted the additional studies. The results of those studies indicated that additional treatability and feasibility studies were required. In January1995, the WRAG agreed to modify the AOC with the EPA to perform the additional work. After completing these additional studies, the WRAG prepared and finalized the supplemental treatability and feasibility study (FS) in July 1997.

    1998 AROD

    Based on the treatability and feasibility study findings in July 1997, the EPA issued an AROD in September 1998 to incorporate elements of the contingency remedy in the 1992 AROD, as well as elements of the original 1985 ROD. The 1998 AROD addressed all contaminated media at the Site by containing the onsite waste sludge, contaminated soils, wetlands, sediment and groundwater. The remedy's function was to isolate the Site as a source of groundwater and surface water contamination and reduce the risks associated with exposure to the contaminated materials.

    The major components of the selected remedy included:

    1. In-situ stabilization/solidification treatment of lifts 1 (topsoil and clay) and 2 (thin layer of shredded foam rubber and plastic overlying a layer of sawdust, wood chips, dimensional lumber, debris and silty sand) with a geogrid to enhance structural stability.

    2. Installation of a slurry wall (slurry wall or geosynthetic sheet pile wall) to isolate and contain contaminated soils, sludge, wetlands, sediments and groundwater.

    3. Installation of a lime curtain inside the containment system to adjust groundwater pH.

    4. Construction of a low permeability cap over the contained area that meets Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure requirements under 40 CFR 264.228(a)(2).

    5. Realignment of the McGirts Creek tributary to optimize the area of groundwater containment.

    6. Extension of the municipal water supply to residents along Machelle Drive and Chaffee Road and plugging of private supply wells.

    7. Installation of a permanent security fence around the containment area and installation and maintenance of appropriate storm water management controls.

    8. Monitored natural attenuation of contaminated groundwater outside the containment system.

    9. Sampling of offsite surface soils and downstream surface water and sediment during design to determine if additional measures are necessary.

    10. Imposition of deed restrictions to control future land and groundwater use.

    The AROD established cleanup goals for groundwater and soils based on federal or state primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or risk based numbers. These cleanup goals and the source of the cleanup level can be found Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of the Final Risk Assessment, dated September 1, 1991, and Table 2-1 of the Final Remedial Action Report. Soils contaminants of concern addressed by the remedy include organic compounds (Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate, Chlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorochlorobenzene, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate, Methylene Chloride, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 1260, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenol, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene and Trichloroethene) and inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead and Nickel). Groundwater contaminants of concern include organic compounds (Acetone, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ehtyl Hexyl) Phthalate, Carbon Disulfide, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate, Ethylbenzene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, 3/4 Methylphenol, Naphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, Phenol, Toluene, Trichloroethene and Xylene) and inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium, Vanadium and Zinc).

    2001 ESD

    An ESD was issued in 2001 to remove the lime curtain from the selected remedy due to concerns that it might adversely affect the sodium based slurry wall. The ESD also increased the size of the slurry wall, size of the cap, and area of the tributary to be realigned based on the discovery of additional contamination.

    Remedial action objectives (RAOs) established in the 1985 ROD and adopted in the 1998 AROD address groundwater, surface water, sludge, sediment and soils. The 2001 ESD did not alter the original RAOs. The RAOs include:

    1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the underlying aquitard.

    2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.

    3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.

    4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the hazardous pollutants off site.

    5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and sediments.

    Response Actions

    Response actions are discussed above. Construction of the remedy began in 2003 and was completed in May 2007 with the finalization of the Remedial Action Report. The City of Jacksonville, now the owner of the property comprising the Site, entered into a restrictive covenant with FDEP on January 27, 2011. This institutional control restricts activities on the property and the future use of the property.

    Cleanup Levels

    Groundwater sampling events have occurred at the Site since August 2006 when the first year of operations maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) began and have continued over the last ten years under the thirty-year OM&M Plan. The groundwater levels are determined inside the barrier wall and groundwater levels and monitoring data are collected at monitoring wells outside of the barrier wall. Contaminants 1,4-dichlorobenzene, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, di-n-butyl phthalate, and PCB-1260 were sampled for during the first quarter of groundwater sampling. The sampling verified that these contaminants were not found at detectable levels outside of the barrier wall and would not require monitoring during future sampling. Manganese has been detected at levels slightly above the State of Florida secondary MCL of 50 ppb upgradient and downgradient of the contaminant source. Therefore, the elevated manganese levels are not thought to be Site related. Monitoring for manganese will continue and action will be taken if levels continue to be elevated and are determined to be Site related. All other groundwater COCs were monitored regularly over the last ten years and their detected levels were below cleanup levels; this includes groundwater arsenic concentrations which have largely been below 1 µg/L. The highest reading was less than 2 µg/L which is well below the current MCL of 10 µg/L. Groundwater is the only media that is monitored at the Site because the remaining contamination in soils and sediment is contained within a barrier wall and cap that prevents lateral contaminant migration.

    Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance (OM&M)

    The OM&M Plan for the Site was approved by the EPA and OM&M activities began in July 2006, and continue to this day. The scope of the OM&M Plan included monthly Site inspections to monitor the following components, except for passive gas management (quarterly) and wetland planting monitoring (semi-annual):

    1. Closure cap.

    2. Passive gas management system.

    3. Storm water management system.

    4. Created wetland planting areas.

    5. Site security system.

    6. Groundwater monitoring system.

    In addition to inspecting the remedial components above, the cap is mowed on a quarterly basis. Originally, water levels of wells inside and outside of the barrier wall were monitored on a monthly basis to evaluate the performance of the barrier wall. Groundwater wells were sampled semi-annually for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-Volatile Compounds (SVOCs) and metals. In April 2013, the EPA and FDEP agreed that sampling could be limited to metals. Now, the monitoring program consists of semi-annual monitoring of 23 wells for metals only and semi-annual water level monitoring of 23 wells and 6 piezometers. At this time, all sampling data are below cleanup criteria. The Site is owned by the City of Jacksonville, which is part of the WRAG PRP group. ICs are maintained by the PRP group through OM&M inspections. City/county zoning and permitting requirements for land and groundwater use in the area add another layer of protection.

    Five-Year Reviews (FYR)

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the EPA's FYR Guidance, statutory FYRs are required for the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site because the completed remedy does not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The first FYR was completed on November 13, 2008, which was five years after onsite construction activities began. The second FYR was signed on May 7, 2014 and indicated that the remedy was still protective of human health and the environment. A multilayered cap covers all impacted soils; a barrier wall contains the contaminated groundwater; and the municipal water supply was extended to residents who live near the Site. The cap, together with the containment provided by the slurry wall, prevents contamination from entering the groundwater and migrating offsite into the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.

    The 2014 FYR stated the remedy was protective only in the short term and included two issues and recommendations. The Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan did not include contingency activities to address groundwater overtopping the containment area and internal flow gradients had not been adequately monitored to assess the structural integrity of the containment system. Recommendations were made to continue to monitor metals concentrations in the groundwater and to modify the OM&M Plan. The OM&M Plan was modified in June 2015 to include more specific contingency actions to address groundwater overtopping the containment area and include monitoring of groundwater flow gradients inside and outside the barrier wall to assess the effectiveness of the containment remedy. Monitoring of groundwater for metals continues. Required actions were completed to make the Site protective of human health and the environment. However, the EPA does not consider groundwater overtopping the containment area to be a justifiable concern for several reasons: (1) The average depth of the barrier wall was designed to extend through the full depth of the surficial unconfined aquifer and key into the underlying semi-confining strata (estimated to be 40 ft.), thus, there can be no lateral or vertical movement of groundwater into the containment area; (2) the entire Site is covered with a multi-layered cap system with a permeability of at least 1E-07 intended to shed any rainwater falling on the cap; (3) the cap system has a network of internal drains which carry any flows penetrating the cap to the ditch system surrounding the cap; and (4) there is no evidence that groundwater levels within the barrier wall are trending up. The Site will continue to be monitored as part of the OM&M Plan and the next FYR is due May 2019.

    Community Involvement

    Community involvement activities were undertaken throughout the thirty-year history of the Site in the form of public meetings, FYR interviews and Site update mail-outs. There are currently no major community concerns about the Site. The FYR community involvement process will continue to monitor any potential community concerns.

    The residents of the surrounding neighborhood stated in the 2013 Site interviews that they are concerned about periodic flooding that occurs in their yards after heavy rains. However, the main factor that is contributing to flooding in the McGirts Creek floodplain is not Site related; the construction of dams by beavers in McGirts Creek is responsible for flooding problems in the area. In the past, the beaver dams were removed by the Site contractors as a courtesy, but has never been part of the actual OM&M Plan requirements. The beaver dam issue has been communicated to the residences of the surrounding neighborhood and the residents are responsible for taking any action to remove beaver dams in the future.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and protection specified in the RODs for the Site for all pathways of exposure. The selected remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. Contamination remaining onsite is being contained to the capped portion. The barrier walls were designed and constructed to contain the contamination and prevent any lateral or vertical movement of groundwater in or out of the containment area; ICs are in place in the form of land and groundwater use restrictions. These ICs are in the form of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant executed between FDEP and the City of Jacksonville. This IC was executed on the 2nd of February 2011, and restricts activities on the property and the future use of the property. All selected remedial and removal actions, remedial action objectives, and associated cleanup goals are consistent with the EPA policy and guidance; the EPA has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) and these actions, objectives and goals have all been achieved and, therefore, no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 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: July 3, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15242 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007; FRL-9980-69—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notification of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site (Site), located in Fridley, Minnesota, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Minnesota, through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), have determined that all appropriate response actions at the OU, identified under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. This partial deletion pertains to the OU3 portion of the NIROP Site, which includes all the unsaturated soils underlying the former Plating Shop Area of the NIROP Superfund Site.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007, 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 issue of the 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 this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for OU3 of the NIROP Superfund Site without prior Notice 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 withdraw the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and it 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 and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 25, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15241 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9980-60—Region 3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance (O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion would not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov Follow 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: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. EPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street—6th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; by appointment only Local Repository, Upper Macungie Township Building, 8330 Schantz Road, Breinigsville, PA 18031, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Greaves, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS211650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-5729, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region III announces its intent to delete the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the Commonwealth, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Reading Eagle. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    EPA proposed the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site) (CERCLIS ID PAD980508832) to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674) and added the Site as final on the NPL on September 21, 1984 (49 FR 37070). The Site is located along the southwest boundary of Upper Macungie Township in Lehigh County, PA, with a small portion of the Site extending into Longswamp Township in Berks County.

    The 27-acre Site consists of an abandoned iron mine pit that was used as a landfill, a surrounding soil berm, and adjacent land. Beginning in 1962, the Site was operated as an open dump, with the majority of waste disposed in an abandoned mine pit. The landfill was expanded to except a variety of household and industrial waste from regional municipalities and local businesses, until operations ceased in December 1978.

    In all areas of the Site, except for the northwestern portion, the water table occurs in the bedrock near or below the bedrock/overburden interface. The overburden is approximately 70 feet thick. The landfill waste is contained within the overburden. The water table exists within the overburden areas of relatively thick overburden and in the bedrock where the overburden is relatively thin. The water table is not in contact with the waste material. The direction of regional groundwater flow in the bedrock-overburden aquifer is generally from the northwest to the southeast.

    In January 1970, the Pennsylvania State Health Center notified the landfill owner that the landfill constituted a public health threat and required the owner to compact the fill and apply cover to the landfill. A follow-up letter stated that the owner did not comply with the directive. In June 1970, a representative from the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental Resources (PADER, formerly, the Pennsylvania State Health Center) visited the landfill and noted the approximate location of an on-site area used for the disposal of sludge. Other visits identified the disposal of petroleum products, asbestos, and battery casings.

    Contaminants in the leachate and groundwater included ketones, vinyl chloride, trichloroethene (TCE), benzene, heavy metals, and arsenic. Soils contained the pesticide dieldrin, as well as lead and chromium. The apparent source of contamination was the waste buried and dumped on the soil at the landfill.

    In 1986, EPA performed an Emergency Removal Action at the Site to ensure that landfill-related materials were not transported off of the property by storm water. The removal action consisted of re-grading the Site to prevent surface water runoff. The construction of on-site ponds allowed for controlled discharge of surface water via two major spillways. Although a soil cover was applied to portions of the Site, the landfill had never been graded and capped, and waste continued to be exposed in some areas.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Site consists of two operable units (OUs). OU1 addresses the source of the contamination by capping the landfill. OU2 focuses on addressing groundwater contamination which is the principal exposure pathway.

    A Cooperative Agreement was signed between EPA and PADER, and PADER became the lead agency for work in the RI/FS phase. The OU1 RI was performed from January to June 1988. Due to difficulties encountered during Phase I activities, additional data needs were identified and investigative activities were proposed as a Phase II RI effort. Results of the OU1 RI were presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report for OU1 dated August 11, 1988. A Feasibility Study for OU1, focusing on the landfill waste, was also submitted in August 1988. The OU2 RI/FS was performed by PADER from March to July 1991. The study focused on the groundwater and primarily consisted of additional sampling of wells installed during the OU1 RI.

    Major field activities conducted during Phase I of the OU1 RI included:

    • Air sampling;

    • On-site surface water and seep sampling;

    • On-site sediment sampling;

    • On-site and off-site, surface and subsurface soil sampling;

    • Monitoring well installation;

    • Groundwater monitoring well and residential well sampling;

    • Hydraulic conductivity testing;

    • Fracture trace analysis;

    • Surface geophysical investigation.

    The major field activities performed during Phase II of the OU1 RI included:

    • Installed one deep well off-site (MW-6) to the southeast to obtain downgradient groundwater data.

    • Installed an off-site well nest (MW-7/7D) to the northwest of the landfill to provide additional groundwater quality data and flow information.

    • Installed on-site boring (TB-LMW-4) to determine the thickness of gravel between the base of the refuse and the top of the bedrock.

    • Installed four borings (TB-1,2,3,4) along the southeast corner of the site to identify the presence or absence of a shallow groundwater zone identified during the OU1 Phase I RI.

    • Obtained six additional groundwater samples (MW-6, 7, 7D, two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered metals.

    • Performed borehole geophysics in off-site wells (MW-2D, 3D, 4, 5D, 6, 7, 7D). Borehole geophysics were performed to supplement the minimal lithological data obtained during the OU1 Phase 1 and Phase II RI drilling and well installation activities due to difficulty in drilling and poor recoveries.

    Air sampling was performed to determine the quantity and quality of ambient airborne contaminants to evaluate the potential exposure to on-site workers and neighboring populations. The data was used to determine the appropriate level of protection on-site, and to establish the exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zone delineations used during the field activities.

    A fracture trace analysis was performed to provide information on the number, size, frequency and orientation of bedrock joints, fractures, and large-scale lineaments. The data was used for determining monitoring well locations and for evaluation of the potential for contaminant migration through bedrock.

    A geophysical investigation (seismic refraction survey) was performed to obtain information on the thickness of overburden and the depth to bedrock, the thickness of the landfill waste, the condition of the bedrock at the iron mine pit, and to verify any lineaments previously identified.

    Sampling and analysis of the on-site ponds was performed to collect data on the contaminant concentrations in the standing liquid and bottom sediments. The data was used to estimate the extent and degree of contamination and estimate the volumes of liquid and soil to be treated and/or removed.

    Soil sampling was performed to provide data on the chemical characteristics of soils both on-site and off-site, to determine the degree of off-site migration of contamination, and to provide data concerning the on-site vertical and horizontal extent of contamination. For comparison to on-site data, a background sample was collected approximately 900 ft. west of the Site and was assumed to be isolated from any site-related conditions. On-site soils exceeded EPA's acceptable levels for both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index primarily due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, lead and chromium. Contaminants in leachate and groundwater included ketones, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), TCE, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene and arsenic. Both cancer and non-cancer groundwater risk substantially exceeded EPA's acceptable criteria. Risk at the Site was due to dermal contact and incidental ingestion of landfill soil, solid waste and on-site ponded waters (OU1) and residential exposure via ingestion of contaminated groundwater and inhalation of volatile contaminants while showering (OU2).

    Selected Remedy

    On September 29, 1988, the Acting Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1. The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD consists of the following components:

    • Elimination of on-site ponded waters • Regrading • Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap • Run-on/Run-off Controls • Run-off Monitoring • Groundwater Monitoring • Perimeter Fence • Deed Notice

    The Remedial Action objectives (RAOs) were not explicitly stated in the ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were inferred:

    • Control contaminant migration off-site by containment of contaminated landfill soil and waste material;

    • Prevent dermal contact and incidental ingestion; and

    • Prevent continued leaching of precipitation and ponded waters through the contaminated landfill material.

    On September 18, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for OU1. The 1991 ESD was issued to address compliance with wetlands Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1 ROD required the destruction of approximately seven acres of wetlands during construction of the cap. The 1991 ESD allowed the sedimentation ponds required to control run-on/run-off from the cap to also mitigate the destroyed wetlands and become a quality habitat for the varied wildlife at the Site.

    On September 30, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed a ROD for OU2 (1991 OU2 ROD), selecting a remedy with the following major components:

    • Wellhead treatment units to be provided to residences if levels of site-related contaminants exceeded federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs);

    • Groundwater monitoring.

    The RAO for OU2 was not explicitly stated in the 1991 OU2 ROD; however, the RAO is inferred to be to eliminate exposure to contaminated groundwater.

    Response Actions

    In September 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO), EPA Docket No. III-90-45-DC, to seven Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) after negotiations were unsuccessful. A second UAO, EPA Docket No. III-91-26-DC, was issued to an eighth PRP on January 25, 1991, and a third UAO, EPA Docket No. III-92-33-DC, was issued to five additional PRPs on August 13, 1992. The UAOs required the PRPs to implement the Selected Remedy described in the 1988 OU1 ROD. The modifications to the Selected Remedy specified in the September 18, 1991 ESD were incorporated into the UAOs. The Remedial Design (RD) was approved in June 1995.

    The Remedial Action (RA) for OU1 began in April 1998. The major components of the RA included the following:

    • Site clearing which included removal of ponded water, clearing of vegetative cover, chipping woody vegetation, and relocation of fugitive surface debris under the cover system;

    • Monitoring well abandonment;

    • Gas trench construction, which was designed to minimize the lateral flow of landfill gas outside the landfill limits below the surface. The design included a peripheral gas collection trench just beyond the lateral extent of the landfill;

    • Landfill regrading to achieve the grades and slopes for the acceptance of the cover system;

    • Subgrade preparation which involved grading and placement of compacted general fill;

    • Construction of a gas vent layer on top of the landfill. A geocomposite was used as a gas vent layer on the side slopes of the landfill.

    • Gas vent collection piping system consisting of flexible 4-inch perforated High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe along the top of the gas trench connected to seventeen 4-inch HDPE conveyance pipes which were connected to seventeen peripheral passive vents along the crest of the cap. On the surface of the cap, an additional fourteen passive vents were installed with four horizontal perforated flexible HDPE feeder pipes to collect the gas and vent it passively through vent pipes;

    • A geotextile was placed over the gas venting layer prior to installation of the grading layer;

    • Two types of geomembrane were installed. A 40-millimeter smooth HDPE geomembrane was installed where the slopes were minimal and a 40-millimeter textured HDPE geomembrane was installed on the embankment slopes along the periphery of the landfill;

    • On the top of the landfill, a geotextile cushion layer was placed over the geomembrane to protect it from the overlying sand drainage layer;

    • A sand drainage layer was put in place and another separation geotextile was put on top of the drainage layer;

    • An 18-inch layer of compacted general fill on the cover system and 24-inches of general fill on the cover system slopes serve as protection layer over the underlying system;

    • A vegetative layer was the final cover;

    • Surface drainage was designed with five basic drainage patterns. These patterns were rough graded during initial landfill grading operations and incorporated as part of the temporary erosion sediment control plan. Permanent drainage incorporated the use of stormwater pipes, riprap channels and natural drainage systems;

    • A replacement wetland was constructed, which also serves as a stormwater drainage area; and

    • A chain link security fence was installed with proper signage.

    The contractor conducted the RA basically as designed, with only minor modifications. One modification had to be made for the construction of the wetlands. The west pond contained a large rock which had to be excavated with a rock hammer and processed using a rock crusher. This generated approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill that was used on the general fill layer of the landfill cap. Another modification was with the placement of the fence on Dorney Road. A variance was needed from the Township to construct the fence closer to the street than 6 feet in order to avoid puncturing the cap with the fence posts. The variance was granted and the fence was installed according to the specifications.

    EPA, PADEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a pre-final inspection on September 20, 1999. The inspection resulted in a schedule for the contractor to correct some minor construction items.

    EPA issued a UAO for the OU2 RD/RA, EPA Docket No. III-92-27-DC, to twelve PRPs on August 18, 1992. The baseline residential well sampling for OU2 was conducted during the first two weeks of March 1999. The 1991 OU2 ROD and RD required residential groundwater samples to be compared to federal MCLs. If the sampling results were above the MCLs, wellhead treatment units would be required. The baseline results were below the MCLs at all residential wells and no wellhead treatment units were installed. Residential monitoring is ongoing. The operation and maintenance plans (O&M Plans) for OU1 and OU2 were approved by EPA and PADEP in October 1997 and September 1996, respectively. The Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) was issued for the Site on September 28, 1999. The PCOR documents that construction activities were completed at the Site in accordance with Closeout Procedures For National Priorities Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

    Cleanup Levels

    Groundwater monitoring is performed in accordance with the 1988 OU1 ROD and 1995 OU1 O&M Plan at the landfill monitoring well network and in accordance with the 1991 OU2 ROD and 1996 O&M Plan at the residential well monitoring network.

    Landfill monitoring is conducted to detect any changes in groundwater quality due to leaching of landfill contaminants. The landfill monitoring network consists of the following wells: MW-2S, MW-2DR, MW-3S, MW-7S, MW-11S and MW-11D. During each sampling event, groundwater samples are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and dissolved metals. Field activities, groundwater elevation data, groundwater quality data and the results of the data validation are presented in each summary report. A summary of all historical data is also presented in the summary reports.

    During the 2013-2017 period, several metals were detected in the landfill monitoring wells. The detected VOCs included PCE, TCE, and chloromethane. All detections during the 2013-2017 period were within the historical range of concentrations and remain very low. Most are well below MCLs except for manganese, mercury and thallium in MW-7S and thallium in MW-3S. MW-7S is up gradient of the landfill and these exceedances do not appear to be site related. Thallium was only detected in MW-3S during two sampling events in 2016, but had not been detected previously or in subsequent sampling events. Based on a review of historical monitoring from 2013 to 2017 from all other monitoring wells, there have been no exceedances of MCLs during this period.

    The 1988 OU1 ROD did not select chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater. Instead, the 1988 OU1 ROD required groundwater monitoring upgradient and downgradient of the Site to detect any changes in groundwater quality due to the potential leaching of landfill contaminants into groundwater. As indicated above, detections of Site-related compounds in groundwater are generally below the respective MCLs and have remained consistent with historic groundwater sampling results. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater as a result of leaching of landfill contaminants have been observed and the groundwater cleanup goal established in the 1988 OU1 ROD has been achieved.

    Residential wells are sampled quarterly on a rotating basis so the same wells are not sampled every event. Groundwater samples are collected from an inside or outside spigot and analyzed for VOCs. Twenty-eight residential wells were sampled between the 2013 and 2017. Of those 28 wells, 14 wells had one or more detections of VOCs. The most commonly detected VOC is PCE. The PCE concentrations are consistent with historical concentrations at these locations. Chloroform was detected at two locations in 2016 and TCE was detected once in 2013. All detections from 2013 to 2017 have been well below respective MCLs and have never exceeded MCLs during any monitoring event.

    The 1991 OU2 ROD waived the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management Regulations [25 PA Code §§ 264.90-264.100, specifically 25 PA Code § 264.97(i) and (j) and § 264.100(a)(9)], which require remediation of groundwater to background levels, as well as the requirement to remediate groundwater to federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l and set forth in 40 CFR 141.61. These ARARs were waived in accordance with CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)(4)(C)) and the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)) due to technical impracticability of achieving background levels (from an engineering perspective) and MCLs throughout the groundwater contaminant plume. As indicated above, detections of Site-related compounds in groundwater are generally below the respective MCLs in Site monitoring wells.

    The 1991 OU2 ROD required that MCLs be met for Site related contaminants of concern (COCs) at the tap prior to use of the groundwater by nearby residents. Wellhead treatment systems would be provided if any Site related MCL exceedances were identified. As indicated above, no Site-related compounds exceeded MCLs in any residential samples during the most recent Five-Year Review period from 2013 to 2017. Additionally, no Site related COCs have been identified in any residential samples above MCLs since sampling began in 1999. Therefore, the RAO of eliminating exposure to contaminated groundwater has been achieved. Residential monitoring will continue to ensure that groundwater cleanup goals continue to be met.

    Operation and Maintenance

    The PRP group conducts long-term monitoring and maintenance activities at the Site in accordance with the EPA-approved August 1995 OU1 O&M Plan and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The primary activities associated with O&M include the following:

    • Visual inspection of the cap with regard to vegetative cover, settlement, stability, and any need for corrective action. In addition, the cap is scheduled for periodic mowing;

    • Inspection of the drainage swales for blockage, erosion and instability, and any need for corrective action;

    • Inspection of the condition of the groundwater monitoring wells;

    • Quarterly groundwater monitoring, which includes monitoring of the landfill wells and residential wells; and

    • Engineered wetlands inspection and assessment. Inspections are conducted primarily for the purposes of assessing both weed control needs and the survival of plantings. Assessments are performed to determine if engineered wetlands are meeting the performance standards regarding survival and density of the desired wetlands species.

    The City of Allentown conducts the quarterly inspections of the landfill, as well as the quarterly groundwater sampling of both the landfill wells and the residential wells. Over the last five years there have been few, if any, problems with the landfill.

    As established in the 1991 OU2 ROD, long-term monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis at five residences selected based on the previous sampling results. The quarterly sampling is conducted by the City of Allentown. The quarterly sampling program may be modified by EPA, in such areas as the number of wells, location of wells, frequency of sampling, and analytical parameters. If quarterly sampling indicates that a residential well that exceeds MCLs, a wellhead treatment system would be provided and maintained. There have been no quarterly residential samples which have been above MCLs since sampling began in March 1999.

    In March of 2007 EPA issued a second ESD (2007 ESD) that required institutional controls (ICs) (e.g. easements, covenants, title notices or land use restrictions through orders or agreements with EPA), to be established to prevent any future use of the Site that could compromise the effectiveness of the Selected Remedy.

    The ICs were established to prevent the disturbance of the landfill cap and the installation of groundwater wells on the capped portion of the Dorney Road Landfill property and to prevent future use of the property that would compromise the effectiveness of the Selected Remedy.

    EPA surveyed the landfill property to determine the parcel boundaries and to confirm the current property owners in 2011. An assessment of the ICs already in place concluded that ICs to protect the integrity of the cap cover system and prevent the installation of drinking water wells on the landfill were implemented by the following instruments with the four Site owners:

    • Unilateral Administrative Order Docket No. III-98-011-DC, March 3, 1998, for access to conduct RA • Unilateral Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-96-79-DC, September 18, 1996, for access to conduct RA • Administrative Order by Consent, Docket No. III-97-84-DC, May 14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability • Administrative Order by Consent Docket No. III-97-85-DC, May 14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability • Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-98-013-DC, for access to conduct RA • Docket No. III-98-012-DC, March 3, 1998, for access to conduct RA, respondent In Rem • Deed Notice No. 8665-9544 May 10, 1991 states that property is part of Dorney Road Landfill CERCLA action in Docket No. III-90-45-DC Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:

    1. First Five-Year Review—July 11, 2003 2. Second Five-Year Review—July 28, 2008 3. Third Five-Year Review—May 29, 2013 4. Fourth Five-Year Review—May 18, 2018

    No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2018 Fourth Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2018 Fourth Five-Year Review was as follows:

    The remedies in place at the Site are protective of human health and the environment. The landfill cap prevents direct contact with site contamination and prevents migration of contaminants to groundwater. Groundwater contamination is stable in landfill wells with most contaminants below MCLs. Residential monitoring indicates site contaminants remain below MCLs. The institutional controls in place are adequate to protect the engineered remedy and prevent installation of drinking water wells on the landfill.”

    Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the Site. Community relations activities included the following:

    • Interviews of Township officials for Five-Year Reviews • Fact Sheets

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's community involvement activities associated with this deletion will consist of information supporting the deletion docket in the local Site information repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL in the Reading Eagle, a major, local newspaper of general circulation.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed and O&M has been untaken and is still ongoing in accordance with the EPA-approved O&M Plans. All RAOs, Performance Standards, and cleanup goals established in the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1991 OU2 ROD, 1991 ESD and 2007 ESD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment. No further Superfund response actions, other than O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, are necessary to protect human health and the environment.

    The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15245 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003; FRL-9980-72—Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davis Timber Company Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Davis Timber Company Superfund Site (Site) located in Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Mississippi (State), through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operations and maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003, by one of the following methods:

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

    (2) Email: Scott Martin, Remedial Project Manager, [email protected]

    (3) Mail: Scott Martin, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    (4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Attention: Scott Martin, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch. Hours of Operation: Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404-562-8951.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003. EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    (1) USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Monday-Friday 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Contact Tina Terrell 404-562-8835; and

    (2) Oak Grove Public Library (in the Reference Section) 4958 Old Highway 11, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39402, Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.; and Saturdays 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; Phone: 601-296-1620.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Martin, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8916, email: [email protected]

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

    The EPA announces its intent to delete the Davis Timber Company Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Davis Timber Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the 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), the 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, the EPA conducts five-year reviews (FYRs) 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. The EPA conducts such FYRs even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The State, through the MDEQ, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, Hattiesburg American. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the responsiveness summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the site's information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Site Background and History

    The Davis Timber Company Site is located at 107 Jackson Road, approximately 6 miles northwest of Hattiesburg, in Lamar County, Mississippi. The Davis Timber Company produced treated pine poles, pilings, and timber at the Site from 1972 to 1987. Operations at the Site included bark removal, treatment of wood with pentachlorophenol (PCP), and product storage. The Site is approximately 30 acres and was comprised of a scragg mill, debarker, pole peeler, office and shop, treatment cylinder, cooling pond, oil storage tank, two aboveground PCP-solution storage tanks, a storage yard, and a large former PCP and waste bark Impoundment (Impoundment).

    Surface soil on the Site consists of a very thin layer of sandy clay, which overlies a very thick clay unit, the Hattiesburg formation, that inhibits vertical migration of precipitation. Surface water runoff from the property flows into two intermittent tributaries of Mineral Creek: East Mineral Creek and West Mineral Creek. Mineral Creek flows northeast into Country Club Estates Lake, a 66-acre lake located approximately 1.25 miles downstream of the Site. Country Club Estates Lake is a recreational fishery and designated recreation area. Wastewater from Site operations containing PCP, dioxin and furan compounds, was discharged into the Impoundment. In 1980, the Impoundment was backfilled and capped by the property owner with approximately 6 to 8 inches of clay.

    Between December 1974 and January 1987, the MDEQ documented six fish kills in Country Club Estates Lake. Several of the fish kills were attributed to documented releases of PCP from the Impoundment. In 1987, MDEQ ordered Davis Timber Company to discontinue wood preserving operations. According to MDEQ, Davis Timber Company subsequently declared bankruptcy in 1990. Since 1987, Mississippi officials collected fish from Country Club Estates Lake seven times and analyzed the fish tissue for dioxin compounds. In 1989, after obtaining the first set of fish tissue data, MDEQ issued an advisory against both commercial fishing and consumption of fish caught in Country Club Estates Lake due to the high levels of dioxin compounds in the fish tissue. In 1989, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was petitioned by the MDEQ to conduct a public health assessment at Country Club Estates Lake on behalf of the residents of Country Club Estates. In that public health assessment, released in January 1993, ATSDR classified Country Club Estates Lake as a public health hazard because of concentrations of PCP and chlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins) and dibenzofurans (furans) detected in the Lake. In July 2000, MDEQ collected fish from Country Club Estates Lake. According to these sampling results, dioxin levels in fish from Country Club Estates Lake declined below 5 pg/g, which is Mississippi's lower limit for issuing consumption advisories for dioxin. In June 2001, Mississippi officials lifted the ban on consumption of fish caught near the Site because dioxin levels in fish showed a significant decrease over a 10-year period.

    The Site was proposed as a NPL Site on May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30489). It was finalized as a NPL Site in July 2000 (65 FR 46096). The EPA's Identification Number is MSD046497012.

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted by the EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) between May 2000 and September 2001. During this period, SESD collected 30 subsurface soil samples, 6 groundwater samples, 51 sediment samples, 11 surface water samples, 27 surface soil samples, and multiple fish tissue samples (individual and composite). The Site was divided into 49 grids measuring 200-ft by 200-ft except in the central-northern portion of the Site, which was divided into 100-ft by 100-ft grids. A 3 to 5-point composite surface sample was collected from each grid and a subsurface sample was collected from the center of each grid at a depth of 18 to 24 inches.

    Contamination was delineated based on those constituents detected at concentrations exceeding the EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) and/or Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for surface water and groundwater; or human health risk-based Region 4 PRGs (e.g., for dioxins/furans in soil and sediment). Risk-based remediation goals derived from Site-specific data are identified by the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for residential, industrial and recreational receptors and the ecological risk assessment. Arsenic, aluminum, thallium, and iron are identified in soil as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) assuming residential use of the property in the RI; however, they were not Chemicals of Concern (COCs) when considering the property will likely be utilized for a recreational future land use, not residential purposes. As a result, COCs for the Site are limited to PCP and dioxin/furans.

    Appreciable quantities of groundwater have not been observed at the Site. Of the four permanent monitoring wells installed outside the Impoundment area, only one produced an adequate quantity of water to collect a groundwater sample. No Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), PCP, or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the groundwater sample collected from this well outside the Impoundment area. Temporary monitoring wells were installed and sampled in the initial field investigation. After evaluation of historical aerial photographs, it is believed these temporary monitoring wells were installed within the footprint of the Impoundment and the fluid sampled was not groundwater but fluid remaining within the Impoundment. The four permanent monitoring wells have been properly abandoned. The groundwater was not a pathway of contaminant migration, and a groundwater response action was not required.

    Selected Remedy

    The site is comprised of one Operable Unit (OU). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Davis Timber Site was signed on September 24, 2009 following consideration of public comment on the proposed plan. The Site's ROD identified the following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):

    i. Reduce or eliminate human exposure to contaminated surface and subsurface soil;

    ii. Reduce human exposure to contaminated surface water; and

    iii. Reduce exposure of ecological receptors to contaminated surface soil and sediment.

    The remedial action specified for this site has been deemed necessary by the EPA to protect public health, welfare, and the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site into the environment. The remedial actions chosen for the Site are summarized as follows:

    (1) Extract the liquid from the closed Impoundment, and treat the liquid to remove the dissolved contamination and discharge the clean water to West Mineral Creek;

    (2) Move a 500 to 1,000-foot portion of West Mineral Creek (immediately adjacent to the Impoundment area) approximately 200 feet west of its current location;

    (3) Construct an earthen retaining wall or berm structure along the western boundary of the Impoundment between it and the relocated portion of West Mineral Creek;

    (4) Excavate and move contaminated soil into the Impoundment area;

    (5) Dredge contaminated sediment from the creeks, ponds, and wetlands, and remove excess water and move into the Impoundment area;

    (6) Construct a cap over the Impoundment area (designed with a stabilizing sub-cap);

    (7) Backfill excavated and dredged locations with clean borrow material;

    (8) Implement land-use/deed restrictions to limit construction over the capped Impoundment and contaminated soil areas;

    (9) Grade and prepare the site for optimal storm water drainage control; and

    (10) Establish and implement a long-term monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the remedial action.

    Response Actions

    Remedial action physical construction activities began during October 2011 following receipt of remedial action funding through the President's Jobs Initiative Program. Remedial action construction services were procured through the existing Region 4 Emergency Response and Removal Services (ERRS) contract.

    Construction activities were completed in August 2012, and included the following:

    (1) Site clearing and demolition of on-site structures;

    (2) Installation of the Impoundment liquid extraction and treatment system (this system treated approximately 539,000 gallons of liquid);

    (3) West Mineral Creek Relocation (relocated approximately 1,046 linear feet of creek approximately 200 feet west of its current location);

    (4) Impoundment berm construction;

    (5) Cooling pond and areas of surface soil contamination excavation (excavated approximately 3,060 cubic yards);

    (6) East Mineral Creek Excavation (approximately 525 linear feet and 101 cubic yards of soil);

    (7) Impoundment cap construction; and

    (8) Final grading and vegetation.

    The selected remedy required Institutional Controls (land use or deed restrictions) to control and limit on-site activities to preserve the integrity of the capped Impoundment and all components of the engineered containment system. Site use is restricted to activities compatible with the future anticipated recreational land use.

    The Site parcel has an environmental covenant which does not allow residential use and restricts excavation before meeting notification requirements of Mississippi's One Call law.

    Cleanup Levels

    The RA successfully achieved compliance with the defined performance standards documented in the ROD and the RD.

    Impoundment Water Extraction and Treatment

    The water extraction and treatment system removed and treated 539,454 gallons of contaminated water from the closed Impoundment. Approximately 77 percent of the water was removed from the Impoundment. The remedial design established performance standards for the treatment system discharge to West Mineral Creek as the Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate and Coastal Waters. These standards comply with the requirements of a Mississippi National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Operation of the treatment system continued until May 30, 2012, when diminishing recovery volumes and water levels indicated the practical limit of dewatering had been reached.

    Soil

    The remedial design specified excavation of contaminated soil from two areas of the Site:

    (1) Within the footprint of the former cooling pond; and

    (2) Within the delineated area of surface soil contamination surrounding the former cooling pond and process area.

    Two additional areas of contaminated soil were discovered during the remedial action and were also excavated:

    (1) Beneath the former maintenance building; and

    (2) Beneath the location of the former treatment cylinder.

    Contaminated soil in these additional soil areas were excavated and disposed of in the Impoundment area until the visible extent of contamination was removed and vapor screening indicated total organic vapors of less than 10 parts per million.

    Post-excavation subsurface soil samples collected from the base of the cooling pond excavation and the surface soil excavation were analyzed for dioxins, furans and PCP. The 2013 Remedial Action Report summarized the sampling results as follows:

    (1) Three composite subsurface soil samples were collected from the base of the cooling pond excavation and compared to the dioxin Toxic Equivalency Quotient (TEQ) cleanup level of 5 µg/kg. All three sample results were below the cleanup level, ranging from 0.088 to 0.40 µg/kg.

    (2) Five composite subsurface soil samples and one duplicate sample were collected from the bottom of the surface soil excavation area. All of the sample results were below the dioxin TEQ cleanup goal of 5 µ g/kg.

    Sediment

    Prior to excavation, the EPA contractor collected additional sediment samples from East Mineral Creek and analyzed for dioxins and furans. All results were below the cleanup goal for dioxin TEQs. Contaminated sediment was excavated from three areas of East Mineral Creek that had shown the highest concentrations during the RI. A total of 101 cubic yards of sediment was removed and disposed of in the closed Impoundment area. Three post-excavation sediment samples and one duplicate sample were collected from the creek to confirm that cleanup goals were achieved. Dioxin TEQ results were below the ROD cleanup level of 1.9 µg/kg for all samples, with values ranging from 0.21 to 0.73 µg/kg. All samples collected during the RI were below the sediment cleanup goal for PCP except for one (8,200 µg/kg, performance standard 7,600 µg/kg).

    Groundwater

    No appreciable quantities of groundwater have been observed at the Site. Of the four permanent monitoring wells installed outside the Impoundment area, only one produced an adequate quantity of water to collect a groundwater sample. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCP, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the groundwater sample collected from this well outside the Impoundment area.

    Post-excavation soil sampling performed by Onedia Total Integrated Enterprise (OTIE) confirmed that soil and sediment cleanup levels were achieved. All work performed by WRS Compass (WRSC) during the RA was conducted in accordance with the RD specifications, unless otherwise documented and approved by the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM). The EPA had a representative on-site for much of the RA construction who, in conjunction with the OTIE representative, ensured that the remedy was constructed in accordance with the RD specifications and that the construction quality control requirements of the specifications were strictly adhered to.

    Operations and Maintenance

    The responsibility for operations and maintenance (O&M) was transferred to the State on October 20, 2014. Future O&M activities at the site are expected to be limited to mowing, inspections, and FYRs. Periodic inspections will need to be implemented to ensure the Impoundment cap and berm retain their integrity, and to ensure that stormwater and sediment controls, the West Mineral Creek channel, and revegetated areas operate as intended.

    Five-Year Review

    The purpose of a the FYR is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them. The first FYR was conducted in December 2016.

    The FYR was conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 121, consistent with the NCP (40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering the EPA policy. The triggering action for this statutory review is the on-site construction start date of the remedial action. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

    The Site consists of one operable unit (OU1), and OU1 consisted of all contaminated media, which includes soil and sediment, associated with the Site.

    The FYR concluded that the remedy at OU1 currently protects human health and the environment because there are no completed exposure pathways; contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and capped, and Impoundment water was treated and discharged. The FYR had no issues or recommendations. The next FYR will be conducted in 2021.

    Community Involvement

    Throughout the removal and remedial process, the EPA has kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability of documents related to the site and FYRs.

    The notice of the availability of the Administrative Record and an announcement of the Proposed Plan for a public meeting was published in the Hattiesburg American newspaper on July 15, 2009. A public comment period was held from July 15, 2009, to August 14, 2009. The Proposed Plan was presented to the community during a public meeting on August 10 at the Breland Community Center, 79 Jackson Road, Hattiesburg, MS 39402. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA and MDEQ answered questions from the community concerning the proposed remedy and the remedial alternatives that were evaluated. The Administrative Record file was available to the public and was placed in the information repository maintained at the EPA Region 4 Superfund Record Center and at the Oak Grove Public Library (in the Reference Section) 4958 Old Highway 11, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39402.

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which the EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories identified above.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The EPA has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) as mentioned above and the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. Specifically, post-excavation soil sampling performed by OTIE confirmed that soil and sediment cleanup levels were achieved. These results verify that the Site has achieved the ROD cleanup standards, and that all cleanup actions specified in the ROD have been implemented. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State through MDEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to delete the Site from the NPL.

    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: July 3, 2018. Onis “Trey” Glenn, III, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15243 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9980-58—Region 3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site (Site) located in East Coventry Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:

    http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 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: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code: 3HS21; Philadelphia, PA. 19103.

    Hand delivery: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    USEPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street—6th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, 215-814-3157, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm; by appointment only Local Repository East Coventry Township Municipal Building, 855 Ellis Woods Road, Pottstown, PA 19464, 610-495-5443, Call for Business Hours
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Hass, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS21 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-2049, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion I. Introduction

    EPA Region III announces its intent to delete the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the Commonwealth, 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. Five-Year Reviews are no longer required at this Site; however, EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete.

    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today

    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;

    (4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Pottstown Mercury. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the site information repositories listed above.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    EPA proposed the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site (Site) (CERCLIS ID PAD002353969) to the NPL on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988) and added the Site as final on the NPL on October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000). The Site is located at the intersection of State Route 724 and Wells Road in East Coventry Township, PA and is approximately 8 miles northwest of Phoenixville, PA and 3.2 miles southeast of Pottstown, PA. The 5-acre Recticon/Allied Steel Site consists of two properties, the former Allied Steel Products Corporation facility and the former Recticon facility.

    From 1972-1988, Allied Steel Products Corporation (Allied) began fabrication of various steel products on a property located on the eastern corner of the intersection. Recticon was a subsidiary of Rockwell International and manufactured silicon wafers for the electronics industry from 1974 to 1981 on the western corner of the intersection. In 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), now known as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), detected trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater beneath the Site. In 1980, a contractor determined that leakage in the area of Allied's compressor room had released TCE onto the ground. High levels of TCE were found in Allied's on-site well. In addition, sediment samples taken from the drainage ditch alongside the Allied building yielded high levels of copper and zinc, well above ecological risk levels.

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Recticon entered into a Consent Order in 1981 to undertake initial cleanup actions at the Site. Recticon, under PADER oversight, removed contaminated soils from the Site and transported them to an EPA-approved facility for disposal. Recticon also pumped and treated some of the groundwater beneath the Site for a few months. Under PADER oversight, Allied Steel also excavated contaminated soil and shipped it off-site for proper disposal. In 1990, EPA entered into two Consent Orders with Rockwell International, the former parent company of Recticon, to provide residential well filters to nearby residents and to conduct the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).

    Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI/FS was conducted from January 1991 through May 1993 and determined that soil, sediment, and groundwater were impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals from the historic operation of the Allied and Recticon facilities.

    Selected Remedy

    The Selected Remedy for the Site was documented in a June 30, 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) and modified in an August 29, 1997 ROD Amendment; a September 10, 2004 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD); and a May 26, 2010 ESD. The following sections discuss the components of the Selected Remedy and details on implementation.

    1993 Record of Decision

    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site as established in the 1993 ROD were as follows:

    1. Prevent human exposure to contaminants in the groundwater.

    2. Restore contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use and to background concentrations, if technically practicable, or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), whichever is more stringent.

    3. Protect uncontaminated groundwater and surface water for current and future use, and environmental receptors.

    After the 1993 ROD was finalized, EPA divided the Site remedial work into three operable units (OUs) to facilitate management of the remedial process.

    • Operable Unit 1 (OU1)—Water Line • Operable Unit 2 (OU2)—Soil • Operable Unit 3 (OU3)—Groundwater OU1—Water Line

    The Selected Remedy for OU1 in the 1993 ROD consisted of the installation of a public water supply to East Coventry Township to 14 residences and businesses.

    OU2—Soil

    The Selected Remedy for OU2 in the 1993 ROD consisted of the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils. The soil cleanup levels in the 1993 ROD were based on the amount of contamination that could remain in the soil without further contributing to groundwater contamination above “background” concentrations.

    The 1997 ROD Amendment changed the cleanup levels for Site contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater from “background” concentrations to MCLs. This change was based on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's enactment of the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2) on May 19, 1995, 35 Pa. Stat. § 6026.101 et seq., which established MCLs as the protective groundwater cleanup levels. As a result of the change in groundwater cleanup levels to MCLs, a new soil cleanup level was calculated for the proposed soil excavation response at the Site. Site-specific modeling was used to determine the maximum concentration of TCE that could be in the soil and not cause leaching into the groundwater above the MCL. The modeling resulted in a cleanup level of 1,600 µg/kg of TCE in soil. It was determined that additional soil excavation was no longer necessary because the concentrations of contaminants in the soil after the initial response action were below this cleanup level.

    The 1997 ROD Amendment also required that institutional controls be implemented to prohibit soil excavation on the Recticon property that could result in exposure to contaminated soil via direct contact and to prohibit any new wells on Site until the groundwater cleanup levels are met.

    The 2004 ESD eliminated the requirement for institutional controls to prohibit direct contact with the soil on the Recticon property. The ESD identified PADEP Act 2 Media Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for TCE for direct contact with soils as the cleanup level that would need to be exceeded for new institutional controls to be necessary. No TCE was detected in soil at the Site exceeding the PADEP Act 2 MSC for direct contact.

    The ESD also eliminated the requirement to prohibit the construction of new groundwater wells at the Site.

    OU3—Groundwater

    The Selected Remedy for OU3 initially consisted of extraction and treatment of groundwater with discharge to the Schuylkill River following a pre-design hydrogeologic investigation and well abandonment. In accordance with the 1993 ROD, a comprehensive pre-design study of the groundwater at the Site was conducted to further define the outer boundaries of the groundwater plume and the hydraulic properties within the aquifer. Based on the findings of this study, a groundwater recovery system for contaminated groundwater was designed. The groundwater recovery system consisted of extraction, shallow tray air stripping and granular activated carbon treatment to remove the VOCs, and discharge of treated water to the Schuylkill River.

    The 2010 ESD changed the groundwater extraction and treatment remedy to enhanced natural bioremediation of TCE. A successful pilot test, which reduced the levels of TCE in the Site wells, had been conducted using this technology. The 2010 ESD also re-instituted the requirement for institutional controls for groundwater use on both the Recticon and Allied properties, since all wells on these properties were not below the cleanup levels.

    Response Actions

    The Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) were performed by Rockwell under Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) No. III-94-16-DC issued on March 24, 1994. In accordance with the 1993 ROD, a Phase 1 Archeological Survey was performed in April 1995 prior to the start of onsite construction activity and determined that the Site had no historical significance. In 1999, Rockwell spun off its semiconductor business as an independent company called Conexant Systems, Inc. Conexant assumed responsibility for performing the RD/RA as required by the UAO.

    OU1—Water Line

    Construction of the water line was completed between September 1998 through November 1999 and consisted of extending a water main to the Site area and connecting 14 residences and businesses. Once the municipal water lines were connected, filtration systems previously used at the properties were no longer necessary. EPA performed the final inspection of the water line and connections on December 13, 1999.

    OU2—Soil

    In accordance with the 1993 ROD, verification sampling was conducted on the soil at the former Allied facility to determine the source and extent of copper and zinc contamination. An ecological assessment indicated that the copper and zinc levels exceeded the Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) screening values, and that any terrestrial or aquatic receptors on or near the Site would be exposed to unacceptable levels of these contaminants. As a result, EPA conducted a time-critical removal at the Site in April 1998. Six inches of contaminated soil were excavated and removed from a small portion of the Site known as the “crane area” and shipped off-site for proper disposal. The area was backfilled with clean soil and grass was planted.

    The 1993 ROD also required the excavation of TCE contaminated soils on the former Recticon facility. This requirement was modified by the 1997 ROD Amendment, which changed the soil cleanup level. As a result of this change, no further soil excavation was required and institutional controls were instead required to prohibit soil excavation. The 2004 ESD subsequently eliminated the requirement for institutional controls for soil.

    OU3—Groundwater

    Construction of the groundwater portion of the remedy started in June 1998 and consisted of the installation of approximately 10 additional monitoring wells, an extraction well and the construction of a groundwater extraction and treatment system. EPA conducted a pre-final inspection of OU3 on April 19, 1999 and determined that Rockwell and its contractors had constructed the remedy in accordance with remedial design plans and specifications. A Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR) was issued on December 14, 1999, documenting Construction Completion for the Site.

    A Pilot Study was initiated in 2001 to evaluate the effectiveness of using enhanced bioremediation to treat groundwater contamination more effectively than groundwater extraction and treatment. The study consisted of injecting non-toxic food-grade amendments and other approved supplements into the groundwater to enhance the natural biodegradation occurring at the Site. A total of 13 injections were completed during the Pilot Study from June 2001 through February 2007 utilizing several different amendments. The Pilot Study effectively reduced VOC contamination in the groundwater close to groundwater cleanup levels. The 2010 ESD replaced groundwater extraction and treatment with enhanced bioremediation based on the results of the Pilot Study.

    Cleanup Levels

    Table 1 describes the soil and groundwater cleanup levels established in the 1997 ROD Amendment:

    Table 1 COC Medium Standard TCE Soil 1,600 μg/kg TCE Groundwater 5 μg/L Vinyl Chloride Groundwater 2 μg/L 1,1 dichloroethene Groundwater 7 μg/L 1,2 dichloroethane Groundwater 5 μg/L 1,2 dichloroethene Groundwater 70 μg/L Tetrachloroethene Groundwater 5 μg/L

    No soil was identified with TCE concentrations exceeding 1,600 μg/kg; therefore, no soil excavation was performed. Soil contaminated with zinc and copper at the Allied facility was excavated and disposed offsite under a time-critical removal action by EPA in 1998.

    Groundwater COC concentrations at all sampling locations were below the groundwater cleanup levels during the 2011 annual sampling event. In accordance with the 1993 ROD, twelve (12) quarters of groundwater sampling were performed between October 2011 and September 2014 to confirm that the cleanup levels have been achieved. Vinyl chloride was detected in one well during this sampling at a concentration exceeding the cleanup level of 2 μg/L and TCE was detected in one well at a concentration exceeding the cleanup level of 5 μg/L. For these two wells, statistical tools specified in EPA program guidance were used to evaluate attainment for vinyl chloride and TCE. These data were statistically analyzed and the cleanup level exceedances were determined not to be statistically significant. No other samples identified any COC above the groundwater cleanup levels throughout the twelve quarters of sampling.

    Additionally, EPA performed a cumulative risk assessment using the 2014 groundwater sampling results. Groundwater COC concentrations were compared to EPA Tap Water Risk Screening Level (RSLs) and if the RSL was exceeded during any of the 2014 sampling events, a risk assessment was performed. The data were grouped in Exposure Areas (EAs) based on groundwater sampling locations. The cumulative risk results were below or within EPA's acceptable risk range for each of the EAs.

    Based on the results of the twelve quarters of groundwater monitoring and the results of the cumulative risk assessment, the groundwater cleanup levels have been achieved at the Site.

    EPA subsequently issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) for the Site dated December 17, 2017. The FCOR summarized the remedial activities conducted at the Site, and concluded that EPA has successfully completed all response actions for the Site in accordance with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

    Operation and Maintenance

    Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities for the Site were focused on the groundwater portion of the remedy (OU3). The initial groundwater remedy involved extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site from 1998 through 2002. The water was treated using a shallow tray air stripper and GAC and the treated water was discharged to the Schuylkill River. The discharge was in continuous compliance with the substantive requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The system treated approximately 200 million gallons of contaminated groundwater prior to being shut down in December 2002.

    The 2010 ESD replaced the groundwater extraction and treatment component of the Selected Remedy with enhanced bioremediation. Groundwater monitoring confirmed that groundwater cleanup levels have been achieved at the Site and no ongoing or future O&M or additional groundwater monitoring is necessary.

    Institutional Controls

    The 1993 ROD required an institutional control to restrict access to those portions of the aquifer where contaminants remain above performance standards. Institutional controls were also included in the 1997 ROD Amendment to prohibit soil excavation on the Recticon property and installation of new wells on the Recticon property until groundwater cleanup levels were met.

    The 2004 ESD stated that institutional controls were no longer required for soil and that the groundwater was making progress toward achieving cleanup levels, therefore, institutional controls prohibiting new wells were no longer required. However, in the 2010 ESD, EPA determined that institutional controls for groundwater were still required since the groundwater cleanup levels had not yet been achieved. Therefore, the installation of new groundwater wells on the two properties comprising the Site needed to be prohibited until the groundwater at the Site meets the cleanup levels selected in the 1997 ROD Amendment. This institutional control has been implemented by deed notices which have been placed on the titles for the two Site properties pursuant to a 2002 Prospective Purchaser Agreement with the current owner of the Allied portion of the Site, and a 2005 Consent Decree with Wellsford, Inc., the current owner of the Recticon portion of the Site.

    The Chester County Health Departments Rules and Regulations, § 501.12.5.1, currently provide an additional layer of use restriction for the Site groundwater by prohibiting the installation or use of drinking water supply wells in the vicinity of the Site unless the wells are tested for contamination and treated if contamination is identified. The relevant provisions of the regulations are provided below:

    501.12.5.1 A permit shall be denied and/or approval to use the water supply shall be withheld in those areas of the County where the Chester County Health Department has been notified by State or Federal agencies or other sources that the area is unsuitable for the installation of on-site water wells due to known groundwater contamination unless the following conditions are met:

    501.12.5.1.1 The water well must be tested prior to use and on a yearly basis for all known and suspected contaminants in the area.

    501.12.5.1.2 When the water quality analysis shows that the contaminant level exceeds the maximum contaminant levels allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act, the water must be treated by the appropriate treatment unit before approval can be granted.

    As discussed in detail above, groundwater cleanup levels have been achieved at the Site. Therefore, in accordance with the 2010 ESD, institutional controls prohibiting the installation of new wells at the Site are no longer required.

    Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:

    1. First Five-Year Review—May 14, 2005 2. Second Five-Year Review—June 23, 2010 3. Third Five-Year Review—May 11, 2015

    No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2015 Third Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2015 Third Five-Year Review was as follows:

    “The Site is protective of human health and the environment. The RAOs established for the Site have been accomplished.”

    There are no hazardous substances or materials left on-site above levels that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore, additional Five-Year Reviews are not required in the future.

    Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the Site. Community relations activities included the following:

    • Interviews of East Coventry Township officials for Five-Year Reviews

    • Annual Meetings with Chester County Board of Health

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's community involvement activities associated with this deletion will consist of placing the deletion docket in the local Site information repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL in the Pottstown Mercury, a major, local newspaper of general circulation.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed and O&M was completed in accordance with the EPA-approved O&M Plan. Institutional controls are no longer necessary at the Site. All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup levels established in the 1993 ROD, 1997 ROD Amendment, 2004 ESD, and 2010 ESD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment in the short- and long-term. No further Superfund response is necessary to protect human health and the environment.

    The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 19, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15244 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    83 137 Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 11, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 16, 2018. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Title: Field Crops Production.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0002.

    Summary of Collection: The primary functions of the National Agricultural Statistics Services' (NASS) are to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, disposition, and prices and to collect information on related environmental and economic factors. The Field Crops Production Program consists of probability field crops surveys and supplemental panel surveys. These surveys are extremely valuable for commodities where acreage and yield are published at the county level. NASS will use surveys to collect information through a combination of the internet, mail, telephone, and personnel interviews. The general authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204.

    Need and Use of the Information: NASS collects information on field crops to monitor agricultural developments across the country that may impact on the nation's food supply. The Secretary of Agriculture uses estimates of crop production to administer farm program legislation and import and export programs. Collecting this information less frequently would eliminate the data needed to keep the Department abreast of changes at the State and national level.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profits.

    Number of Respondents: 626,115.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 181,411.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15162 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 12, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by August 16, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Study of School Food Authority (SFA) Procurement Practices.

    OMB Control Number: 0584—NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The purpose of the Study of SFA Procurement Practices is to describe and assess the practices of SFAs related to procuring goods and services for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), and Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and to better understand how SFAs make decisions that lead to these procurement practices. Study findings will describe similarities and differences in how SFAs procure goods and services and explain key issues and experiences of SFAs. Using a nationally representative sample of SFAs, this study will be one of the first Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) studies of SFA procurement practices for Child Nutrition (CN) meal programs that comprehensively examines the use of Food Service Management Companies and Cooperative Purchasing Agreements, recordkeeping, local purchases, and food purchase specifications. Procurement for CN meal programs can be affected by federal regulations (such as the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which set procurement requirements for NSLP and SBP in 2014), policy memos, program guidance, and grant funding, in addition to State and local policies.

    Additionally, there are government-wide regulations under 7 CFR 210.21, 220.16, 225.17, 226.22, and 2 CFR 200 that also apply to these procurements. SFA procurement procedures must adhere to CN program and government-wide regulations and guidance, and State and local policies related to procurement.

    Need and Use of the Information: This study will collect data on a voluntary basis from SFAs using a web survey and in-depth interviews. FNS will use the information collected through this study to better understand how SFAs make decisions that lead to their procurement practices for CN programs, to assist SFAs in understanding FNS regulations and complying with program requirements, to provide more effective policy guidance, and to provide supplemental training.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 760.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: One-time.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,268.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15184 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0040] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fruits and Vegetables AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0040.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0040, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0040 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States, contact Mr. Juan Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, RPM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0264.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U .S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. This authority has been delegated to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which administers regulations to implement the PPA.

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83) allow a number of fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States, under specified conditions, from certain parts of the world while continuing to protect against the introduction of pests into the United States. Under these regulations, the importation of a variety of fruits and vegetables from specified countries require the use of information collection activities such as phytosanitary certificates, trapping records, compliance agreements, application of sterile insect technique, monitoring, safeguarding, emergency action notifications, and notices of arrival.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.45 hours per response.

    Respondents: National plant protection organization officials of countries exporting to the United States and businesses.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 65.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 13.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 855.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 381 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of July 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15230 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USDA Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of a currently approved information collection, Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems (0596-0010), with a revision for a new sampling approach.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before September 17, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to: USDA, Forest Service, Attn: James Bentley, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN 37919. Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 865-862-0262 or by email to: [email protected]

    Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites and upon request. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, 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. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    The public may inspect comments received at the Southern Research Station, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN, during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 865-862-2000 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Bentley, Southern Research Station, at 865-862-2056. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems.

    OMB Number: 0596-0010.

    Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2019.

    Type of Request: Renewal with Revision.

    Abstract: The Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 require the Forest Service to evaluate trends in the use of logs and wood chips, to forecast anticipated levels of logs and wood chips, and to analyze changes in the harvest of these resources from the Nation's forest resource. This important survey has been conducted since the 1940s, with various adjustments along the ways to accommodate new questions or data collection needs. Information provided in this data collection can be used to:

    • Describe the timber resource and its use in detail;

    • Evaluate trends in resource use;

    • Forecast future anticipated level of demand on the resource; and

    • Analyze the ramifications of any changes in timber demand.

    For this renewal, we are proposing a new sample design to guide the annual collection of information from primary wood-using mills, replacing the periodic approach. This new approach is more efficient and cost-effective, and ultimately will generate more accurate, comprehensive, and timely information.

    To collect this information, USDA Forest Service or state natural resource agency personnel will use three questionnaires. Two questionnaires, the Pulpwood Questionnaire and the Logs and Other Roundwood Questionnaire, will be paper or electronic. Paper questionnaires will be returned in pre-paid postage envelopes, and electronic questionnaires returned via email. The third questionnaire, the Logging Operations Questionnaire, will be administered in person by field personnel collecting tree utilization data at sampled logging sites.

    Pulpwood Received Questionnaire: USDA Forest Service personnel will use this questionnaire to collect and evaluate information from pulp mills in order to monitor the volume, types, species, sources, and prices of timber products harvested throughout the United States. The data collected will be used to provide essential information about the current use of the Nation's timber resources for pulpwood industrial products and is not available from other sources.

    Logs and Other Roundwood Received Questionnaire: This questionnaire is used by USDA Forest Service or state natural resource agency personnel to collect and evaluate information from the other, non-pulp, primary wood-using mills, including small, part-time mills, as well as large corporate entities. Primary wood-using mills are facilities that use harvested wood in log or chip form, such as sawlogs, veneer logs, composite panel, posts, and poles, to manufacture a secondary product, such as lumber or veneer. USDA Forest Service personnel evaluate the information collected and use it to monitor the volume types, species, sources, and prices of timber products harvested throughout the United States.

    Logging Operations Questionnaire: This questionnaire is used by USDA Forest Service and/or state natural resource agency personnel to collect and evaluate information from logging operations, to help characterize the logging industry and its response to outside influences. The information will be used to measure the `health' of the logging industry, as well as to provide background information for decision-making.

    Affected Public: Individuals and the Private Sector (Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations), in particular mill owners, procurement foresters, logging operations owners, and loggers will be affected.

    Estimate of Burden per Response: An average of 30 minutes for the Pulpwood Questionnaire for 132 respondents (estimated); an average of 42 minutes for the Logs and Other Roundwood Questionnaire for 2,875 respondents (estimated); an average of 11 minutes for the Logging Operations Questionnaire for 435 respondents (estimated).

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3,442.

    Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,147 hours.

    Comment Is Invited

    Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Dated: June 29, 2108. Carlos Rodriguez-Franco, Deputy Chief for Research and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15228 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [06/27/2018 through 07/10/2018] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for

  • investigation
  • Product(s) Centerless Technology, Inc 45 Wells Street, Rochester, NY 14611 6/27/2018 The firm manufactures steel parts through precision grinding. DeLong's, Inc 301 Dix Road, Jefferson City, MO 65109 6/27/2018 The firm manufactures fabricated structural steel products. Fusion Systems, Inc. d/b/a Fusion OEM 6951 High Grove Boulevard, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 7/2/2018 The firm manufactures electro-mechanical devices, control systems, and communications equipment as well as associated racks, cabinets and housings. The firm also provides related assembly services. La Mar Lighting Company, Inc. 485 Smith Street, Farmingdale, NY 11735 7/3/2018 The firm manufactures fluorescent and light-emitting diode (LED) light fixtures as well as related sensor controls.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15203 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-088] Steel Racks From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 10, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill or Patrick O'Connor at (202) 482-3518 or (202) 482-0989, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petition

    On June 20, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of steel racks from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition of Fair Rack Imports (the petitioner).1 The AD Petition was accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of steel racks from China.

    1See the petitioner's Letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 20, 2018 (the Petition). See Volume I of the Petition, at 1-3.

    On June 22, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in two separate supplemental questionnaires, one dealing with general issues with the petition and the other with issues related to Volume II of the Petition.2

    2See Commerce's Letters, both titled, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” and both dated June 22, 2018.

    The petitioner filed its responses to the supplemental questionnaires on June 26.3 On June 28, and June 29, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain areas of the Petition.4 The petitioner filed responses to Commerce's requests on June 29, and July 2, 2018.5 On July 5, 2018, we spoke with the petitioner regarding the scope language submitted in its July 2, 2018 submission.6 On July 9, 2018, the petitioner filed an amendment to the scope, further clarifying the scope language.7

    3See the petitioner's Letters, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Supplemental Questions—Antidumping Duties, dated June 26, 2018 (AD Supplement). See “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Supplemental Questions—General Issues,” dated June 26, 2018 (General Issues Supplement).

    4See Memoranda, “Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,” dated June 28, 2018 and Memorandum, “Phone Call with Counsel to Petitioners,” dated June 29, 2018.

    5See Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Additional Response to Supplemental Questions—Antidumping Duties,” dated June 29, 2018 (Second AD Supplement). See “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Second Set of Supplemental Questions—General Issues,” dated July 2, 2018 (Second General Issues Supplement). See “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Additional Response to Supplemental Questions—Antidumping Duties,” dated July 2, 2018 (Third AD Supplement).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of steel racks from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing steel racks in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegation.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.8

    8See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

    Period of Investigation

    Because China is a non-market economy (NME) country, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is steel racks from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petition, Commerce contacted the petitioner regarding the proposed scope language to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.9 As a result, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects these clarifications.

    9See General Issues Supplement, at 1-9; see also Revised Scope, at Exhibit 1.

    As discussed in the preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).10 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,11 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit scope comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 30, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.12 Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 9, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.

    10See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    11See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).13 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing requirements, effective August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of steel racks to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors of production accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on July 30, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.14 Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 9, 2018. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the China less-than-fair-value investigation.

    14See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,15 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.16

    15See section 771(10) of the Act.

    16See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.17 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel racks, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.18

    17See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-13 and Exhibit I-9; see also General Issues Supplement, at 9-10.

    18 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China (China AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2017 shipments of the domestic like product and compared this to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.19 The petitioner explained that it relied on shipment data because production data for the entire domestic industry were not available.20 In addition, the petitioner contends that shipments are a reasonable proxy for data on production of steel racks.21 We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.22

    19See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-5 and Exhibits I-2 and I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 10-11 and Exhibit 5; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibits 1 and 2.

    20See Volume I of the Petition, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-2.

    21Id. at 4 Exhibit I-3; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 4.

    22See Volume I of the Petition, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 10-11 and Exhibit 5; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibits 1 and 2.

    In its July 3, 2018, letter, Jiaxing Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Jiaxing Zhongda), a Chinese exporter/producer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.23 The petitioner responded to these comments in the Industry Support Supplement, dated July 3, 2018.24 In a letter dated July 5, 2018, Guangdong Wireking Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. (Guangdong Wireking), a Chinese exporter/producer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.25 The petitioner responded to Guangdong Wireking's comments on July 6, 2018.26 In a letter dated July 9, 2018, United Material Handling (UMH), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.27 The petitioner responded to these comments in the Third Industry Support Supplement, dated July 10, 2018.28 For further discussion of these comments, see Attachment II of the China AD Initiation Checklist.

    23See Jiaxing Zhongda's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Pre-Initiation Industry Support Comments, dated July 3, 2018 (Jiaxing Zhongda Letter).

    24See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Industry Support Comments,” dated July 3, 2018 (Industry Support Supplement).

    25See Guangdong Wireking Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Pre-Initiation Industry Support Comments,” dated July 5, 2018 (Guangdong Wireking Letter).

    26See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Industry Support Comments,” dated July 6, 2018 (Second Industry Support Supplement).

    27See UMH's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China Pre-Initiation Comments on Industry Support, dated July 9, 2018) (UMH Letter).

    28 See the peitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to UMH's Industry Support Comments,” dated July 10, 2018 (Third Industry Support Supplement).

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, letters from Jiaxing Zhongda, Guangdong Wireking, and UMH, the Industry Support Supplement, the Second Industry Support Supplement, the Third Industry Support Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.29 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).30 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.31 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.32 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    29See China AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    30Id.; see also section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.

    31See China AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    32Id.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.33

    33Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.34

    34See Volume I of the Petition, at 17 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and lost revenues; decline in production, quantity of U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization rate; and decline in the domestic industry's profitability.35 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.36

    35See Volume I of the Petition, at 14-28 and Exhibits I-3, I-13, and I-15 through I-24; see also General Issues Supplement, at 11-12 and Exhibit 6; and Second General Issues Supplement, at 4-5.

    36See China AD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China.

    Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an AD investigation of imports of steel racks from China. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the China AD Initiation Checklist.

    Export Price

    The petitioner based U.S. export prices (EP) on price quotes.37 Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for distributor markup, movement and other expenses, consistent with the terms of sale.38

    37See China AD Initiation Checklist.

    38Id.

    Normal Value

    Commerce considers China to be an NME country.39 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by Commerce. Therefore, we continue to treat China as an NME country for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, NV in China is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.40

    39See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and accompanying decision memorandum, China's Status as a Non-Market Economy, unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018).

    40See China AD Initiation Checklist.

    The petitioner claims that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.41 The petitioner provided publicly available information from Brazil to value all FOPs.42 Therefore, based on the information provided by the petitioner, we determine that it is appropriate to use Brazil as the primary surrogate country for initiation purposes.

    41See Volume II of the Petition, at 1-2 and Exhibits II-1 and II-2.

    42Id. at 5-7 and Exhibits II-7 through II-15.

    Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    Factors of Production

    Based on its assertion that information regarding the FOPs and volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters of steel racks was not reasonably available to the petitioner, the petitioner used the consumption rates of a U.S. steel racks producer to estimate the Chinese manufacturers' FOPs.43 The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Brazil, as noted above.44 The petitioner used the average POI exchange rate to convert surrogate values expressed in Brazilian reals to U.S. dollars.45

    43See Volume II of the Petition at 5-7 and Exhibit II-7 and AD Supplement at 2-3 and Exhibit 3.

    44Id. at 5-7 and Exhibits II-7 through II-15.

    45Id. at Exhibit II-9.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of steel racks from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for steel racks from China are 130.0-144.5 percent.46

    46See China AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of steel racks from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named 93 producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of steel racks to the United States from China.47 In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation. In the event Commerce determines that it cannot individually examine each company, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on the responses received to its Q&V questionnaire. Commerce will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified with complete contact information in the Petition. In addition, Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Enforcement and Compliance's website at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    47See Volume I of the Petition at Exhibit I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 1.

    Producers/exporters of steel racks from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from Enforcement & Compliance's website. The Q&V questionnaire response must be submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2018, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.48 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.49 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of Commerce's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. Commerce requires that companies from China submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V questionnaire response will not receive separate-rate consideration.

    48See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    49 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.50

    50See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petition have been provided to the government of China via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel racks from China are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.51 Otherwise, the investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    51Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 52 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.53 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    52See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    53See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in a letter or memorandum of the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.54 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).55 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

    54See section 782(b) of the Act.

    55See also Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule). Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule are available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    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 Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is steel racks and parts thereof, assembled, to any extent, or unassembled, including but not limited to, vertical components (e.g., uprights, posts, or columns), horizontal or diagonal components (e.g., arms or beams), braces, frames, locking devices (i.e., end plates and beam connectors), and accessories (including, but not limited to, rails, skid channels, skid rails, drum/coil beds, fork clearance bars, pallet supports, column and post protectors, end row and end aisle protectors, corner guards, row spacers, and wall ties). Subject steel racks and parts thereof are made of steel, including, but not limited to, cold and/or hot-formed steel, regardless of the type of steel used to produce the components and may, or may not, include locking tabs, slots, or bolted, clamped, or welded connections.

    Steel rack components can be assembled into structures of various dimensions and configurations by welding, bolting, clipping, or with the use of devices such as clips, end plates, and beam connectors, including, but not limited to the following configurations: (1) Racks with upright frames perpendicular to the aisles that are independently adjustable, with positive locking beams parallel to the aisle spanning the upright frames with braces; and (2) cantilever racks with vertical components parallel to the aisle and cantilever beams or arms connected to the vertical components perpendicular to the aisle. Steel racks may be referred to as pallet racks, storage racks, stacker racks, retail racks, pick modules, selective racks, or cantilever racks and may incorporate moving components and be referred to as pallet-flow racks, carton-flow racks, push-back racks, movable-shelf racks, drive-in racks, and drive-through racks. While steel racks may be made to ANSI MH16.l or ANSI MH16.3 standards, all steel racks and parts thereof meeting the description set out herein are covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not produced according to a particular standard.

    The scope includes all steel racks and parts thereof meeting the description above, regardless of

    (1) dimensions, weight, strength, gauge, or load rating;

    (2) vertical components or frame type (including structural, roll-form, or other);

    (3) horizontal support or beam/brace type (including but not limited to structural, roll-form, slotted, unslotted, Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam, and cantilever beam);

    (4) number of supports;

    (5) number of levels;

    (6) surface coating, if any (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc, or other metallic coatings);

    (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, corner, and cantilever);

    (8) the method by which the vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to locking tabs or slots, bolting, clamping, and welding); and

    (9) whether or not the steel rack has moving components (including but not limited to rails, wheels, rollers, tracks, channels, carts, and conveyors).

    Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been finished or packaged in a third country. Finishing includes, but is not limited to, coating, painting, or assembly, including attaching the merchandise to another product, or any other finishing or assembly operation that would not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the steel racks and parts thereof. Packaging includes packaging the merchandise with or without another product or any other packaging operation that would not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the steel racks and parts thereof.

    Steel racks and parts thereof are included in the scope of this investigation whether or not imported attached to, or included with, other parts or accessories such as wire decking, nuts, and bolts. If steel racks and parts thereof are imported attached to, or included with, such non-subject merchandise, only the steel racks and parts thereof are included in the scope.

    The scope of this investigation does not cover: (1) Decks, i.e., shelving that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports to provide the horizontal storage surface of the steel racks; (2) wire shelving units, i.e., shelves made from wire that incorporate both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create a finished unit; (3) pins, nuts, bolts, washers, and clips used as connecting devices; and 4) non-steel components.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are any products covered by Commerce's existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China. See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 63,741 (October 21, 2017); Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 63,745 (October 21, 2017). Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units that were specifically excluded from the scope of the Boltless Steel Shelving Orders because such bulk-packed parts or components do not contain the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) packaged together for assembly into a completed boltless steel shelving unit.

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 7326.90.8688, 9403.20.0080, and 9403.90.8041. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, 7308.90.9590, and 9403.20.0090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15225 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-089] Certain Steel Racks From the People's Republic: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 10, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eli Lovely or Robert Galantucci at (202) 482-1593 or (202) 482-2923, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petition

    On June 20, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) Petition concerning imports of certain steel racks (steel racks) from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Rack Imports (the petitioner), the members of which are domestic producers of steel racks.1 The CVD Petition was accompanied by an antidumping duty (AD) Petition concerning imports of steel racks from China.

    1See the petitioner's Letter, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties and Countervailing Duties: Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China,” dated June 20, 2018 (the Petition).

    On June 22, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in two separate supplemental questionnaires, one dealing with CVD programs and one primarily with scope clarification issues.2 The petitioner filed additional information on June 26, 2018.3

    2See Commerce's Letters, both titled, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” and both dated June 22, 2018.

    3See the petitioner's Letters, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Supplemental Questions—Countervailing Duties,” dated June 26, 2018 (CVD Supplement). See “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Supplemental Questions—General Issues,” dated June 26, 2018 (General Issues Supplement).

    On June 28, 2018, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to industry support and import statistics.4 The petitioner filed a response to Commerce's request on July 2, 2018.5 On July 5, 2018, we spoke with the petitioner regarding the scope language submitted in its July 2, 2018, submission.6 On July 9, 2018, the petitioner filed an amendment to the scope, further clarifying the scope language.7

    4See Memoranda, “Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,” dated June 28, 2018.

    5See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China—General Issues,” dated July 2, 2018 (Second General Issues Supplement).

    6See Memorandum, “Phone Call with Counsel to the Petitioner,” dated July 5, 2018.

    7See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Scope Clarification,” dated July 9, 2018 (Revised Scope).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of steel racks in China and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic steel racks industry in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support necessary for the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.8

    8See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, infra.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on June 20, 2018, the period of investigation is

    January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is steel racks from China. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    During our review of the Petition, Commerce received proposed scope language from the petitioner to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.9 As a result of petitioner's submissions, the scope of the Petition was modified to clarify the description of merchandise covered by the Petition. The description of the merchandise covered by this initiation, as described in the Appendix to this notice, reflects this clarification.

    9See General Issues Supplement, at 1-9; see also Revised Scope, at Exhibit 1.

    As discussed in the Preamble to Commerce's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).10 Commerce will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,11 all such factual information should be limited to public information. To facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, Commerce requests that all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on July 30, 2018, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 9, 2018, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comments deadline.12

    10See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).

    11See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) (defining “factual information”).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    Commerce requests that any factual information parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All such submissions must be filed on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).13 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents exempted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    13See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). See also Enforcement and Compliance: Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of Commerce's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.14 The GOC did not request consultations.

    14See Commerce's Letter, “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Steel Racks from China,” dated June 20, 2018.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,15 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, Commerce's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.16

    15See section 771(10) of the Act.

    16See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.17 Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that steel racks, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.18

    17See Volume I of the Petition, at 11-13 and Exhibit I-9; see also General Issues Supplement, at 9-10.

    18 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis as applied to this case and information regarding industry support, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China (China CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the Appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own 2017 shipments of the domestic like product and compared this to the estimated total shipments of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.19 The petitioner explained that it relied on shipment data because production data for the entire domestic industry are not available.20 In addition, the petitioner contends that shipments are a reasonable proxy for data on production of steel racks.21 We relied on data the petitioner provided for purposes of measuring industry support.22

    19See Volume I of the Petition, at 3-5 and Exhibits I-2 and I-3; see also General Issues Supplement, at 10-11 and Exhibit 5; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibits 1 and 2.

    20See Volume I of the Petition, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-2.

    21Id., at 4 and Exhibit I-3; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 4.

    22See Volume I of the petition, at 4-5 and Exhibit I-2; see also General Issues Supplement, at 10-11 and Exhibit 5; see also Second General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Exhibits 1 and 2.

    In its July 3, 2018, letter, Jiaxing Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Jiaxing Zhongda), a Chinese exporter/producer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.23 The petitioner responded to these comments in the Industry Support Supplement, dated July 3, 2018.24 In a letter dated July 5, 2018, Guangdong Wireking Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. (Guangdong Wireking), a Chinese exporter/producer, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.25 The petitioner responded to Guangdong Wireking's comments on July 6, 2018.26 In a letter dated July 9, 2018, United Material Handling (UMH), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, submitted comments on industry support and requested that Commerce poll the industry to determine industry support.27 The petitioner responded to these comments on July 10, 2018.28 For further discussion of these comments, see Attachment II of the China CVD Initiation Checklist.

    23See Jiaxing Zhongda's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Pre-Initiation Industry Support Comments,” dated July 3, 2018 (Jiaxing Zhongda Letter).

    24See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Industry Support Comments,” dated July 3, 2018 (Industry Support Supplement).

    25See Guangdong Wireking's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Pre-Initiation Industry Support Comments,” dated July 5, 2018 (Guangdong Wireking Letter).

    26See the petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Industry Support Comments,” dated July 6, 2018 (Second Industry Support Supplement).

    27See UMH's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China Pre-Initiation Comments on Industry Support,” dated July 9, 2018 (UMH Letter).

    28See Petitioner's Letter, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China: Response to Industry Support Comments,” dated July 10, 2018 (Third Industry Support Supplement).

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the General Issues Supplement, the Second General Issues Supplement, letters from Jiaxing Zhongda, Guangdong Wireking, and UMH, the Industry Support Supplement, the Second Industry Support Supplement, the Third Industry Support Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.29 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, Commerce is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).30 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.31 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.32 Accordingly, Commerce determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    29See China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    30Id.; see also section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act.

    31See China CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    32Id.

    Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(E) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that Commerce initiate.33

    33Id.

    Injury Test

    Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.34

    34See Volume I of the Petition, at 17 and Exhibit I-13.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant and increasing volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and lost revenues; decline in production, quantity of U.S. shipments, and capacity utilization rate; and decline in the domestic industry's profitability.35 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.36

    35See Volume I of the Petition, at 14-28 and Exhibits I-3, I-13, and I-15 through I-24; see also General Issues Supplement at 11-12 and Exhibit 6; and Second General Issues Supplement, at 4-5.

    36See China Initiation Checklist at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China.

    Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Based on the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of steel racks from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 25 of the 28 subsidy programs alleged in the petition. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not on each program, see China CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named 93 producers/exporters as accounting for the majority of exports of steel racks to the United States from China.37 In the event Commerce determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon Commerce's resources, where appropriate, Commerce intends to select mandatory respondents based on quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires issued to potential respondents. Commerce normally selects mandatory respondents in a CVD investigation using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data, and on July 5, 2018, we released CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO and indicated that interested parties wishing to comment regarding the CBP data and respondent selection must do so within three business days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of this CVD investigation.38 However, for this investigation, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers of the subject merchandise would enter under (7326.90.8688, 9403.20.0080, and 9403.90.8041) are basket categories containing products unrelated to steel racks, and much of the reported entry data do not contain quantity information. We, therefore, cannot rely on CBP entry data in selecting respondents. We instead intend to issue Q&V questionnaires to each potential respondent, for which the petitioner has provided a complete address, that is: (1) Named in the Petition, and (2) appears in the CBP entry data, and base respondent selection on the responses received. Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaire along with the filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance website at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    37See Volume I of the Petition, at Exhibit I-6; see also General Issues Supplement, at 1 and Exhibit 1.

    38See Memorandum, “Steel Racks from the People's Republic of China Countervailing Duty Petition: Release of Customs Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” dated July 5, 2018.

    Exporters and producers of steel racks from China that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy of the Q&V questionnaire from the Enforcement and Compliance website. The Q&V questionnaire must be submitted by the relevant Chinese exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on July 24, 2018, which is two weeks from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on the Commerce's website at http://enforcement.trade.gov/apo.

    Comments must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully, in its entirety, by ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on the date noted above. We intend to finalize our decisions regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public versions of the Petition have been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of steel racks from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.39 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated.40 Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    39See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    40See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). 19 CFR 351.301(b) requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 41 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.42 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    41See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    42See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Parties should review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.43 Parties must use the certification formats provided in 19 CFR 351.303(g).44 Commerce intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable certification requirements.

    43See section 782(b) of the Act.

    44See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, Commerce published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    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 Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is steel racks and parts thereof, assembled, to any extent, or unassembled, including but not limited to, vertical components (e.g., uprights, posts, or columns), horizontal or diagonal components (e.g., arms or beams), braces, frames, locking devices (i.e., end plates and beam connectors), and accessories (including, but not limited to, rails, skid channels, skid rails, drum/coil beds, fork clearance bars, pallet supports, column and post protectors, end row and end aisle protectors, corner guards, row spacers, and wall ties). Subject steel racks and parts thereof are made of steel, including, but not limited to, cold and/or hot-formed steel, regardless of the type of steel used to produce the components and may, or may not, include locking tabs, slots, or bolted, clamped, or welded connections.

    Steel rack components can be assembled into structures of various dimensions and configurations by welding, bolting, clipping, or with the use of devices such as clips, end plates, and beam connectors, including, but not limited to the following configurations: (1) Racks with upright frames perpendicular to the aisles that are independently adjustable, with positive locking beams parallel to the aisle spanning the upright frames with braces; and (2) cantilever racks with vertical components parallel to the aisle and cantilever beams or arms connected to the vertical components perpendicular to the aisle. Steel racks may be referred to as pallet racks, storage racks, stacker racks, retail racks, pick modules, selective racks, or cantilever racks and may incorporate moving components and be referred to as pallet-flow racks, carton-flow racks, push-back racks, movable-shelf racks, drive-in racks, and drive-through racks. While steel racks may be made to ANSI MH16.l or ANSI MH16.3 standards, all steel racks and parts thereof meeting the description set out herein are covered by the scope of this investigation, whether or not produced according to a particular standard.

    The scope includes all steel racks and parts thereof meeting the description above, regardless of

    (1) Dimensions, weight, strength, gauge, or load rating;

    (2) vertical components or frame type (including structural, roll-form, or other);

    (3) horizontal support or beam/brace type (including but not limited to structural, roll-form, slotted, unslotted, Z-beam, C-beam, L-beam, step beam, and cantilever beam);

    (4) number of supports;

    (5) number of levels;

    (6) surface coating, if any (including but not limited to paint, epoxy, powder coating, zinc, or other metallic coatings);

    (7) shape (including but not limited to rectangular, square, corner, and cantilever);

    (8) the method by which the vertical and horizontal supports connect (including but not limited to locking tabs or slots, bolting, clamping, and welding); and

    (9) whether or not the steel rack has moving components (including but not limited to rails, wheels, rollers, tracks, channels, carts, and conveyors).

    Subject merchandise includes merchandise matching the above description that has been finished or packaged in a third country. Finishing includes, but is not limited to, coating, painting, or assembly, including attaching the merchandise to another product, or any other finishing or assembly operation that would not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the steel racks and parts thereof. Packaging includes packaging the merchandise with or without another product or any other packaging operation that would not remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the steel racks and parts thereof.

    Steel racks and parts thereof are included in the scope of this investigation whether or not imported attached to, or included with, other parts or accessories such as wire decking, nuts, and bolts. If steel racks and parts thereof are imported attached to, or included with, such non-subject merchandise, only the steel racks and parts thereof are included in the scope.

    The scope of this investigation does not cover: (1) Decks, i.e., shelving that sits on or fits into the horizontal supports to provide the horizontal storage surface of the steel racks; (2) wire shelving units, i.e., shelves made from wire that incorporate both a wire deck and wire horizontal supports (taking the place of the horizontal beams and braces) into a single piece with tubular collars that slide over the posts and onto plastic sleeves snapped on the posts to create a finished unit; (3) pins, nuts, bolts, washers, and clips used as connecting devices; and (4) non-steel components.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are any products covered by Commerce's existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on boltless steel shelving units prepackaged for sale from the People's Republic of China. See Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 63,741 (October 21, 2017); Boltless Steel Shelving Units Prepackaged for Sale From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 63,745 (October 21, 2017). Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are bulk-packed parts or components of boltless steel shelving units that were specifically excluded from the scope of the Boltless Steel Shelving Orders because such bulk-packed parts or components do not contain the steel vertical supports (i.e., uprights and posts) and steel horizontal supports (i.e., beams, braces) packaged together for assembly into a completed boltless steel shelving unit.

    Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under the following subheadings: 7326.90.8688, 9403.20.0080, and 9403.90.8041. Subject merchandise may also enter under subheadings 7308.90.3000, 7308.90.6000, 7308.90.9590, and 9403.20.0090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15224 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-062] Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that cast iron soil pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China (China) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 17, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin or Denisa Ursu, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478 and (202) 482-2285 respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 20, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination in the LTFV investigation of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China.1 The mandatory respondents in this investigation are Shanxi Xuanshi Industrial Group Co. Ltd. (Xuanshi), Wor-Biz International Trading Co., Ltd. (Anhui) (Wor-Biz), Sibo International Limited (Sibo), and Kingway Pipe Co., Ltd. (Kingway). Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. The revised deadline for the final determination of this investigation is now July 5, 2018.2

    1See Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 7145 (February 20, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See 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.

    A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by interested parties for this final determination may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.3 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 http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    3See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cast iron soil pipe fittings from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I of this notice. For this final determination, Commerce has issued a scope memorandum addressing interested parties' comments regarding scope issues presented in the case briefs and in subsequent scope comments.4 Commerce has determined to modify the scope of the investigation to include two additional subheadings of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule under which subject merchandise may enter. Commerce has also provided a clarification in the Final Scope Memorandum. For further discussion, see Commerce's Final Scope Memorandum. The scope in Appendix I reflects the final scope language.

    4See Memorandum, “Countervailing Duty and Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations of Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Memorandum” (Final Scope Memorandum), dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    In accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of cast iron soil pipe fittings from the China-wide entity, the non-selected separate rate respondents, and Sibo, but do not exist with respect to Xuanshi and Wor-Biz.5 Commerce received no comments regarding its preliminary critical circumstances findings. For the final determination, we continue to find that, in accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise from the China-wide entity. Based on updated shipment and import data, we find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to Xuanshi, Wor-Biz, and the non-selected separate rate respondents.6 As discussed below, we have determined that Sibo is no longer eligible for a separate rate, and is now considered to be part of the China-wide entity.

    5See Preliminary Determination at 33-34.

    6See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for further details.

    China-Wide Entity and Use of Adverse Facts Available

    After the Preliminary Determination and prior to verification, Sibo notified Commerce that it was withdrawing from participation in this investigation. By withdrawing from participation in this investigation, Sibo prevented us from conducting verification of its questionnaire responses, including its claim that it is a wholly foreign-owned company. Therefore, we find that Sibo has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, and is considered to be part of the China-wide entity.7 For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Determination, we continue to find that the use of adverse facts available (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, is warranted in determining the rate for the China-wide entity, which includes Sibo, Kingway, and other uncooperative respondents.

    7Id.

    China-Wide Rate

    In selecting the AFA rate for the China-wide entity, Commerce's practice is to select a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated.8 Specifically, it is Commerce's practice to select, as an AFA rate, the higher of: (a) The highest dumping margin alleged in the petition; or, (b) the highest calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.9 For the final determination and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we are relying on the highest non-aberrational control-number-specific dumping margin calculated for Sibo in the Preliminary Determination to determine the rate for the China-wide entity.10

    8See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethyl cellulose from Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethyl cellulose from Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005).

    9See, e.g., Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying IDM.

    10See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 for a full discussion of this issue.

    Separate Rates

    For the final determination, we continue to find that Xuanshi and Wor-Biz are eligible to separate rates, as noted below. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of Act. Consistent with our practice, we calculated a dumping margin for the companies determined to be eligible for separate rates, but which were not individually examined, based on the final dumping margins calculated for Xuanshi and Wor-Biz.11 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for the separate rate companies.12 In this case, as complete publicly-ranged sales data was unavailable, we based the separate rate on a simple average of the two calculated margins.

    11See Memorandum, “Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Calculation of the Final Margin for Separate Rate Companies,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    12See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, 13 Commerce stated that it would calculate producer/exporter combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Accordingly, we have assigned combination rates to certain companies as provided in the “Final Determination” section below.

    13See Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation, 82 FR 37053, 37056 (August 8, 2017).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from interested parties and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the calculation of the antidumping duty margin applicable to Xuanshi and Wor-Biz. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    Commerce determines that cast iron soil pipe fittings from China are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, and that the following dumping margins exist:

    Producer Exporter Estimated weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • rate
  • (adjusted for
  • subsidy
  • offsets)
  • (percent)
  • Shanxi Xuanshi Industrial Group Co., Ltd Shanxi Xuanshi Industrial Group Co., Ltd 27.18 27.09 Guang Zhou Premier & Pinan Foundry Co., Ltd/Botou Chenyuan Foundry Co., Ltd/Wuhu Best Machines Co., Ltd Wor-Biz Trading Co., Ltd (Anhui) 22.11 21.88 Shijiazhuang Asia Casting Co., Ltd Shijiazhuang Asia Casting Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd/Xinle Xinye Metal Products Co., Ltd Shanxi Zhongrui Tianyue Trading Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd/Xinle Rishuo Casting Factory/Shijiazhuang Shunjinguangao Trade Co., Ltd/Xinle Tang Rong Fa Lan Pan Co., Ltd Dalian Lino F.T.Z. Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Xinle City Zhile Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd/Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd/Foshan City Deying Metal Products Co., Ltd Dinggin Hardware (Dalian) Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Xinle Rishuo Casting Factory/Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd Dalian Metal I/E Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Qinshui County Xinwei Precision Co., Ltd Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Shanxi Guruiwei Casting Co., Ltd Richang Qiaoshan Trade Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 Shijiazhuang Jingruisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd/Qinshui Shunshida Casting Co., Ltd/Xinle City Zhile Pipe Co., Ltd Hebei Metals & Engineering Products Trading Co., Ltd 24.65 24.49 China-Wide Entity 360.39 360.30
    Disclosure

    Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, exported by Xuanshi and Wor-Biz, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 20, 2018, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination notice in the Federal Register.

    Furthermore, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist pursuant to section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act with respect to the China-wide entity. Therefore, for this entity, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation for all appropriate entries of cast iron soil pipe fittings entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 22, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination.

    To determine the cash deposit rate,14 Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding where appropriate. Accordingly, because Commerce has made a final affirmative determination for export subsidies, we offset the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the appropriate rates as indicated in the above chart.15 We made no adjustment for domestic subsidy pass-through in this case because we found no basis upon which to make such an adjustment.16

    14See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    15See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for further discussion.

    16Id.

    In addition, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above will be the rate identified for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Chinese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV.

    As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of cast iron soil pipe fittings from China. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce intends to issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: July 5, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is cast iron soil pipe fittings, finished and unfinished, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications, and regardless of size. Cast iron soil pipe fittings are nonmalleable iron castings of various designs and sizes, including, but not limited to, bends, tees, wyes, traps, drains, and other common or special fittings, with or without side inlets.

    Cast iron soil pipe fittings are classified into two major types—hubless and hub and spigot. Hubless cast iron soil pipe fittings are manufactured without a hub, generally in compliance with Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute (CISPI) specification 301 and/or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification A888. Hub and spigot pipe fittings have hubs into which the spigot (plain end) of the pipe or fitting is inserted. Cast iron soil pipe fittings are generally distinguished from other types of nonmalleable cast iron fittings by the manner in which they are connected to cast iron soil pipe and other fittings.

    The subject imports are normally classified in subheading 7307.11.0045 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): Cast fittings of nonmalleable cast iron for cast iron soil pipe. They may also be entered under HTSUS 7324.29.0000 and 7307.92.3010. The HTSUS subheadings and specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances IV. China-Wide Rate V. Separate Rates VI. Adjustments for Countervailable Export Subsidies VII. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VIII. Discussion of the Issues General Issues Comment 1: What Rate to Assign as Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Sibo and the China-Wide Entity Comment 2: Surrogate Country Selection Comment 3: Adjusting the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) Import Data for Movement Expenses Comment 4: Treatment of Certain Inputs as Materials or Overhead Comment 5: Reintroduced Materials Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Coated Sand Comment 7: Calculating the Margins on a Consistent Basis Comment 8: Calculation of Movement Expenses Comment 9: Non-Refundable Value Added Tax (VAT) Comment 10: Record-Keeping Deficiencies Wor-Biz Issues Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Asphalt Paint Comment 12: Surrogate Value for Paint Thinner Comment 13: Calculation of Freight Revenue Xuanshi Issues Comment 14: Surrogate Value for Pig Iron Comment 15: Surrogate Values for Iron Ore, Coal, and Coke Comment 16: Calculation of the Slag Iron By-Product Offset Comment 17: Calculation of the Packing Material Consumption Rates Comment 18: Surrogate Values for Inland and Ocean Freight IX. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-14925 Filed 7-13-18; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Economic Expenditure Survey of Golden Crab Fishermen in the U.S. South Atlantic Region AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Scott Crosson, (305) 361-4468 or scott.crosson@noaa.gov

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to collect economic information from golden-crab landing commercial fishermen in the United States (U.S.) South Atlantic region. The data gathered will be used to evaluate the likely economic impacts of management proposals. In addition, the information will be used to satisfy legal mandates under Executive Order 12898, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, and other pertinent statues.

    II. Method of Collection

    A standardized survey will be administered via in-person, telephone and/or mail to all fishermen participating in the fishery.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0648-0631.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15191 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG302 Endangered Species; File Nos. 18238, 21327 and 22123 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of applications for permits and a permit modification.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that three applicants have applied in due form for a permit or permit modification to take green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and olive ridley (L. olivacea) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting the applicable File No. from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on the applications should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman (for File No. 18238-01) or Erin Markin (for File Nos. 21327 and 22123), (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permits and permit modification are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    File No. 18238-01: Permit No. 18238 issued on April 21, 2016 (81 FR 43589) authorizes the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037, (Responsible Party: Lisa Ballance, Ph.D.,) to take green, loggerhead, and olive ridley sea turtles for research in southern California waters. Researchers may conduct vessel surveys for sea turtle counts, captures, examination, observation, marking, biological sampling, tagging, and morphometrics. The permit holder requests authorization to: (1) Increase the number of green sea turtles that may be taken from 60 to 100 turtles annually to accommodate an increase in survey effort needed to improve population abundance estimates, and (2) extend the duration of the permit until September 30, 2025.

    File No. 21327: Raymond Carthy, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS-BRD, P.O. Box 110485, Gainesville, FL 23611, proposes to continue research to determine (1) distribution and abundance, (2) use of benthic habitats, (3) demographics and movement patterns, and (4) human impacts for sea turtles in the Florida Panhandle and Big Bend region of Florida. Up to 1720 green, 160 hawksbill, 285 Kemp's ridley, and 180 loggerhead sea turtles, annually, may be harassed, but not captured, during vessel surveys and when using a remotely operated vehicle to study brumating behavior. Up to 540 green, 40 hawksbill, 210 Kemp's ridley, and 130 loggerhead sea turtles would be captured, annually, by hand, or dip, tangle, or strike net, marked, biologically sampled (blood, tissue, scute), tagged (flipper and passive integrated transponder [PIT]), measured, weighed, and photographed prior to release. A subset of captured sea turtles would receive a satellite tag or a combination of an acoustic and archival tag and a subset of green sea turtles would be lavaged prior to release. The permit would be valid for 10 years from the date of issuance.

    File No. 22123: Jeffrey Schmid, Ph.D., Conservancy of Southwest Florida, 1495 Smith Preserve Way, Naples, FL 34102, proposes to continue long-term in-water studies of sea turtles inhabiting the Charlotte Harbor and Ten Thousand Islands estuarine complexes on the southwest coast of Florida to determine species composition, abundance, size-class distribution, migration patterns, growth, habitat preference, and site fidelity. Up to 60 Kemp's ridley and 30 loggerhead sea turtles, annually, would be captured by strike net, biologically sampled (blood, scute, tissue), tagged (PIT, flipper), transported to and temporarily held in a facility for opportunistic fecal collection, photographed, measured, and weighed prior to release. A subset of captured Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles also would receive a satellite tag or radio and sonic tags prior to release. Up to 20 green sea turtles, annually, would be captured by strike net, biologically sampled (blood, scute, tissue), tagged (PIT, flipper), photographed, measured, weighed, and receive a satellite tag or radio and sonic tags prior to release. Up to five hawksbill sea turtles, annually, would be captured by strike net, biologically sampled (blood, scute, tissue), tagged (PIT, flipper), photographed, measured, and weighed prior to release. The permit would be valid for 10 years from the date of issuance.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15196 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG336 International Whaling Commission; 67th Meeting; Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the date, time, and location of the public meeting being held prior to the 67th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Because the meeting will address U.S. positions, any U.S. citizen with an identifiable interest in U.S. whale conservation policy may participate, but NOAA reserves the authority to inquire about the interests of any person who appears at the meeting and to determine the appropriateness of that person's participation.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held August 7, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Silver Spring Civic Center, 1 Veterans Pl, Silver Spring, MD 20910, in the Spring Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Doherty, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries (phone: (301) 427-8385 or email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for discharging the domestic obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. IWC Commissioner has responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. The U.S. IWC Commissioner is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and other U.S. Government agencies.

    Additional information about the IWC meeting, including a draft agenda for the meeting, is posted on the IWC Secretariat's website at https://iwc.int/iwc67.

    NOAA will a hold public meeting to discuss the tentative U.S. positions for the September 2018 IWC meeting in Florianopolis, Brazil. Because the meeting will address U.S. positions, the substance of the meeting must be kept confidential. Any U.S. citizen with an identifiable interest in U.S. whale conservation policy may participate, but NOAA reserves the authority to inquire about the interests of any person who appears at the meeting and to determine the appropriateness of that person's participation. In particular, persons who represent foreign interests may not attend. Persons deemed by NOAA to be ineligible to attend will be asked to leave the meeting. These stringent measures are necessary to protect the confidentiality of U.S. negotiating positions.

    The August 7, 2018, meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. in the Spring Room of the Silver Spring Civic Center, 1 Veterans Pl, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Carolyn Doherty, [email protected] or (301) 427-8385, by July 23, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Christopher W. Rogers, Acting Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15237 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Frank M. Sprtel, (301) 628-1641 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a revision and extension of a currently approved information collection through the Environmental Compliance Questionnaire for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Financial Assistance Applicants (Questionnaire). This Questionnaire is used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collect information about proposed activities for the purpose of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA,” 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370) and other environmental compliance requirements associated with proposed activities. NEPA requires federal agencies to complete an environmental analysis for all major federal actions, including funding non-federal activities through federal financial assistance awards where federal participation in the funded activity is expected to be significant. The Questionnaire is used in conjunction with NOAA Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).

    The NOFO will indicate the specific questions to which an applicant must respond in one of three ways: (1) The applicable questions are inserted directly into the NOFO with reference to the OMB Control Number (0648-0538) for this form; (2) the NOFO will specify which questions (e.g., 1, 2) an applicant must answer, with the entire OMB-approved Questionnaire attached to the NOFO; or (3) applicants to be recommended for funding will be required to answer relevant questions from the Questionnaire. The federal program officer will determine which questions are relevant to each specific applicant. Answers must be provided before the application can be submitted for final funding approval.

    This Questionnaire has been revised to (1) remove repetitive questions; (2) revise specific questions to use plain language; and (3) add questions that would be helpful to a wider range of NOAA programs.

    II. Method of Collection

    The information may be submitted electronically or on paper (faxed or mailed).

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0538.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (revision and extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; state, local, or tribal government; and Federal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 736.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,030.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15192 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NW-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration BroadbandUSA Webinar Series AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meetings—monthly webinars.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as part of its BroadbandUSA program, will host a series of webinars on a monthly basis to engage the public and stakeholders with information to accelerate broadband connectivity, improve digital inclusion, strengthen policies and support local priorities. The Practical Broadband Conversations webinar series will provide an ongoing source of information on a range of topics and issues being addressed by BroadbandUSA, including but not limited to best practices for improving broadband deployment, digital inclusion, workforce skills, and e-government.

    DATES:

    BroadbandUSA will hold the webinars from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the third Wednesday of every month, beginning October 17, 2018 and continuing through September 18, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    This is a virtual meeting. NTIA will post the registration information on its BroadbandUSA website https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elaine Sloan, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4872, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8231; email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NTIA's BroadbandUSA program serves as a trusted and neutral strategic advisor, collaborating with federal, state and local government, and industry leaders working to advance smart city and broadband initiatives designed to attract new employers, create quality jobs, improve educational opportunities, increase health outcomes and advance public safety.

    BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect state and local stakeholders to other federal agencies and funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption throughout America. Experts from NTIA's BroadbandUSA program are available to provide technical assistance and to connect stakeholders with additional resources, such as best practices, guides and program models.

    NTIA's BroadbandUSA team convenes events around the country to bring together government, industry and non-profit personnel working to expand broadband connectivity and improve digital inclusion and workforce skills. These webinars are among the events BroadbandUSA uses to share broadband information with the public, broadband stakeholders, tribal, local and state governments and federal programs.

    Details on specific webinar topics and webinar registration information will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events. The presentation, transcript, and recording of the webinars will be posted on the BroadbandUSA website within 7 days following the live webinar.

    The public is invited to participate in these webinars. General questions and comments are welcome at any time during webinars via email to [email protected] The webinars are open to the public and press. Pre-registration is recommended. NTIA asks each registrant to provide their first and last name, city, state, zip code, job title, organization and email address for both registration purposes and to receive any updates on BroadbandUSA or via email at [email protected] Information on webinar content and how to register for one or more webinars will available on NTIA's website at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov under Events. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify the NTIA contact listed above at least seven (7) business days before the meeting.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15160 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID USN-2018-HQ-0009] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DON) is proposing to establish a new system of records that will be used to verify eligibility of current DON law enforcement officers for assigned duties and to determine if reassignment, reclassification, detail or other administrative action is warranted based on an officer's ability to obtain or maintain credential qualification requirements; verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated and retired DON law enforcement officers to ship, transport, possess or receive Government-issued or private firearms or ammunition; and to verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated, and retired DON law enforcement officers to receive DON endorsed law enforcement credentials, to include Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before August 16, 2018. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sally A. Hughes, Head, FOIA/PA Programs (ARSF), Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-3000, telephone (703) 614-3685.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law that allows two classes of persons—the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer”—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States.

    The Department of the Navy's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division website at http://defense.gov/privacy.

    The proposed system report, as required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on May 16, 2018 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 7 of OMB Circular No. A-108, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,” revised December 23, 2016 (December 23, 2016 81 FR 94424).

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:

    Law Enforcement Officer Eligibility and Credential Records, NM05580-2.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Organization elements of the Department of the Navy (DON). Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List available, as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of records notices, or may be obtained from the system manager. Applications are submitted via Defense Consulting Services, 15750-W-1-10, San Antonio, TX 78249. Third Party services for USMC are provided by LEOSA Credential Manager, 701 South Courthouse Road, Building 2, Floor 2, Arlington, VA 22204. Tel: (703) 604-4502, Email: [email protected]

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    LEOSA Program Manager, Commander, Navy Installations Command, 716 Sicard Street SE, Suite 1000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5140. Tel: (202)-433-9567.

    Marine Corps Policy Official, Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch, Security Division, Plans, Policies and Operations (PP&O), Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 3000 Pentagon, Room 4A324, Washington, DC 20350-3000. Tel: (703) 614-1068.

    Record Holders Commanding officers of the U.S. Navy activity in question and/or Marine Corps Credential Approving Authorities at Marine Corps Headquarters, installations, and units. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List that is available at http://doni.daps.dla.mil/sndl.aspx.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    10 U.S.C. 5013, Secretary of the Navy; 10 U.S.C. 5041, Headquarters, Marine Corps function, composition; 18 U.S.C. 922, Unlawful Acts; 18 U.S.C. 926B and 926C, Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers; DoD Instruction 5525.12 Implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    To verify eligibility of current DON law enforcement officers for assigned duties and to determine if reassignment, reclassification, detail or other administrative action is warranted based on an officer's ability to obtain or maintain credential qualification requirements.

    To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated and retired DON law enforcement officers to ship, transport, possess or receive Government-issued or private firearms or ammunition.

    To verify and validate eligibility of current, separating or separated, and retired DON law enforcement officers to receive DON endorsed law enforcement credentials, to include LEOSA credentials.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Current, separating or separated, and retired DON law enforcement officers including military police, masters at arms, and civilian police officers.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Name, Social Security Number (SSN), Department of Defense (DoD) Identification (ID) Number, date and place of birth, gender, citizenship, badge number, physical description, passport type photograph, copy of military identification card, copy of state driver's license or state issued identification card, copy of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Identity History Summary, service status, dates of service, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) code, title/series/grade, assignments, related education and training completed, statements of medical qualification, certifications granted and/or revoked, copies of credentials, clearances, notice of personnel actions, notice of convictions, type of separation, affiliated law enforcement experience including dates of employment, position/job title and reason for leaving, work and home phone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses, applications for DON issued certification of eligibility, applicant signed statements of eligibility and understanding of requirements, copies of DD 2760, DD-214, and SF-50.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Individuals, DoD, DON, Navy and U.S. Marine Corps security offices, the FBI, and system managers.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    a. To the Department of Justice for the purpose of inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which may be used by firearm licensees (importers, manufacturers or dealers) to determine whether individuals are qualified to receive or possess firearms and ammunition.

    b. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.

    c. To designated officers and employees of Federal, State, local, territorial or tribal, international, or foreign agencies maintaining civil, criminal, enforcement, or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant and necessary to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    d. To designated officers and employees of Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, international, or foreign agencies in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the conduct of a suitability or security investigation, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter and the Department deems appropriate.

    e. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for the purpose of addressing civilian pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies

    f. To the appropriate Federal, State, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature.

    g. To any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the DoD, or its components, officers, employees, or members in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    h. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when the DoD or other Agency representing the DoD determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.

    i. To the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    j. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.

    k. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the DoD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the DoD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the DoD (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the DoD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    l. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the DoD determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    Paper records and/or electronic storage media.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Name, last four of SSN or DoD ID number.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Current DON law enforcement officer general eligibility verification records: Destroy upon separation or transfer of employee or when 2 years old, whichever is earlier.

    Application packages for active duty/currently employed Navy and Marine Corps law enforcement officer 926B LEOSA Credentials:

    1. DD Form 2760, Qualification to Possess Firearms or Ammunition.

    a. Enlisted military police (MP): Destroy 5 years after initial issuance of law enforcement credentials or upon submission of updated DD Form 2760 during law enforcement credential renewal.

    b. Commissioned officers, warrant officers, and Navy and Marine Corps civilian police officers: Destroy 10 years after initial issuance of law enforcement credentials or upon submission of updated DD Form 2760 during law enforcement credential renewal.

    2. LEOSA 926B Certificate of Eligibility.

    Destroy 5 years after initial issuance of law enforcement credentials or upon submission of updated LEOSA 926B Certificate of Eligibility during law enforcement credential renewal.

    Application packages for Retired/Separated Navy and Marine Corps law enforcement officer 926C LEOSA Credentials are destroyed 2 years after issuance of law enforcement credentials.

    The DD Form 2760, Qualification to Possess Firearms or Ammunition and the LEOSA 926C Certification of Eligibility are PERMANENT records and transferred to the National Archives 2 years after issuance of law enforcement credentials.

    a. Destroy paper/electronic copies upon receipt of acceptance by NARA.

    Collection forms, paper and/or plastic badges/passes are shredded or incinerated using DoD approved procedures. If any IT system or data storage media fails and must be replaced, the data storage component (e.g., disks/hard drives) is removed from the hardware and degaussed with DoD approved degaussing systems and are then mechanically shredded prior to disposal.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Access is provided on a need-to-know basis only. Paper records are maintained in file cabinets under the control of authorized personnel during working hours. The office space in which the file cabinets are located is locked outside of official working hours. Computer terminals are located in supervised areas. Access is controlled by password and/or Primary Key Infrastructure (PKI)/Common Access Card (CAC). Computerized records maintained in a controlled area are accessible only to authorized personnel. Records are maintained in a controlled facility. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, guards, and is accessible only to authorized personnel. Physical and electronic access is restricted to designated individuals having a need-to-know in the performance of official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to Commanding Officer of the activity in question. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List available as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of records notices or may be obtained from the system manager.

    For Marine Corps LEOSA 926C and 926B Credential application records, individuals should address written inquiries to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Plans, Policies, and Operations, Security Division, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch (PSL), 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, DC 20380-1775.

    For verification purposes, the individual should provide full name, SSN and/or DoD ID Number, sufficient details to permit locating pertinent records, and either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Navy's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5E; 32 CFR part 701; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Commanding Officer of the activity in question. Official mailing addresses are published in the Standard Navy Distribution List available as an appendix to the Navy's compilation of system of records notices or may be obtained from the system manager.

    For Marine Corps LEOSA 926C and 926B Credential application records, individuals should address written inquiries to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Plans, Policies, and Operations, Security Division, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch (PSL), 3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington, DC 20380-1775.

    For verification purposes, individual should provide full name, SSN and/or DoD ID Number, sufficient details to permit locating pertinent records, and either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15226 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1894-211] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: New Major License.

    b. Project No.: P-1894-211.

    c. Date filed: June 28, 2018.

    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G).

    e. Name of Project: Parr Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Broad River, in Newberry and Fairfield Counties, South Carolina. The project includes 162.61 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William Argentieri, P.E., Manager of Civil Engineering, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 220 Operation Way, Mail Code A221, Cayce, SC 29033-3701; (803) 217-9162; or email at [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar at (202) 502-6035; or [email protected]

    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    k. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item m below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC 61,076 (2001).

    l. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.

    m. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: August 27, 2018.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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-1894-211.

    n. Project Description: The project consists of two developments; the 14.88 Megawatt (MW) Parr Shoals Development and the 511.2-MW Fairfield Pumped Storage Development.

    The Parr Shoals Development consists of: (1) The 15-mile-long, 4,250-acre Parr Reservoir, at full pond elevation 265.3 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88); (2) the 2,690-foot-long Parr Shoals Dam, which includes a non-overflow section and powerhouse intake section; (3) a powerhouse integral with the dam, with six generating units; and (4) transmission facilities that consist of three 950-foot-long, 13.8-kilovolt lines extending from the hydro station to the non-project Parr sub-station.

    The Fairfield Pumped Storage Development consists of: (1) The 6,800-acre Monticello Reservoir (upper reservoir), at normal maximum elevation 424.3 feet NAVD 88, formed by four earthen dams (A, B, C, and D); (2) a 265-foot-long gated intake channel, located between dams B and C; (3) four 800-foot-long surface penstocks bifurcating into eight penstocks; (4) an underground generating station, which houses eight pumped-turbine units; and (5) transmission facilities that consist of three 7,000-foot-long lines extending from the Fairfield switch station to the non-project V.C. Summer switchyard.

    The Fairfield Pumped Storage Development is operated to generate during peak demand periods. Generation usually occurs during the day, with the upper reservoir replenished by pumping water at night (non-peak period). The Parr Shoals Development serves as the lower reservoir for the pumped storage project.

    o. A copy of the application is available for 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, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    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, contact FERC Online Support.

    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made, as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary) September 2018. Request Additional Information September 2018. Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments October 2018. Comments on Scoping Document 1 December 2018. Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis August 2019. Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions October 2019. Commission issues EA or draft EA February 2020. Comments on EA or draft EA April 2020. Commission Issues Final EA (if necessary) June 2020.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15256 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-1990-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Stonepeak Kestrel Energy Marketing 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 31, 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 11, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15200 Filed 7-16-18; 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 electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-280-004.

    Applicants: Lee County Generating Station, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective 10/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-366-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: Report Filing: 2018-07-11_Refund Report for Ameren-Kirkwood 1st Rev WDS to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1607-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2018-07-11_Amendment to Manual Redispatch filing to be effective 5/16/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1611-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Amendment to May 15, 2018 Limited Tariff Waiver Request of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1995-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5128; Queue No. AD1-156 to be effective 6/15/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1996-000.

    Applicants: Transource Pennsylvania, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act of Transource Pennsylvania, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1997-000.

    Applicants: Transource Maryland, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act of Transource Maryland, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1998-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Teichos Energy (Wildwood Solar) SGIA Termination Filing to be effective 6/6/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1999-000.

    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.

    Description: Request of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. for Authorization to Make Wholesale Power Sales to an Affiliate.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2000-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions of APS to be effective 9/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2001-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-11_SA 3129 MidAmerican-Glaciers Edge Wind E&P (J506) to be effective 6/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2002-000.

    Applicants: Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Rate Schedule to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2003-000.

    Applicants: Lorenzo Wind, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Lorenzo Wind,LLC Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    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 11, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15198 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1894-211] Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

    Take notice that the following settlement agreement has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Settlement Agreement.

    b. Project No.: P-1894-211.

    c. Date filed: June 28, 2018.

    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G).

    e. Name of Project: Parr Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Broad River, in Newberry and Fairfield Counties, South Carolina. The project includes 162.61 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William Argentieri, P.E., Manager of Civil Engineering, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 220 Operation Way, Mail Code A221, Cayce, SC 29033-3701; (803) 217-9162; or email [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar at (202) 502-6035; or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments: Comments on the Settlement Agreement are due August 13, 2018. Reply comments are due August 27, 2018.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-1894-211.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Settlement: SCE&G filed a Settlement Agreement on behalf of itself, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Congaree Riverkeeper, Mr. Jeffrey Carter, and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are currently reviewing the Settlement Agreement. The purpose of the Settlement Agreement is to resolve, among the signatories, all issues associated with issuance of a new license for the project regarding recreation; flow fluctuations downstream from Parr Shoals Dam; fisheries habitat in Monticello Reservoir; monitoring of American eel and freshwater mussels; diadromous fish protection; enhancement of aquatic habitat; water quality; shoreline management and erosion in Parr and Monticello Reservoirs; and historic properties. SCE&G requests that the Commission accept and incorporate into any new license measures as described in Appendix A of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement includes off-license agreements between the signatories of the Settlement Agreement.

    l. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available for 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, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    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, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15255 Filed 7-16-18; 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 Number: PR18-64-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective June 29 2018.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 201807095045.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-966-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (Pioneer July 2018) to be effective 7/11/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5154.

    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 date(s). 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 11, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15199 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

    AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    July 19, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Agenda.* Note—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.

    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.

    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's website at http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    1046th—Meeting Item No. Docket No. Company Administrative A-1 AD18-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD18-2-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. Electric E-1 RM18-2-000 Cyber Security Incident Reporting Reliability Standards. E-2 RM18-15-000 Revisions to Parts 45 and 46 of the Commission's Regulations. E-3 RR17-6-000 North American Electric Reliability Corporation. E-4 EL15-67-003 Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ER15-2562-002 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ER17-950-003 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. EL17-68-000 Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. EL17-84-001 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. EL17-90-001 Linden VFT, LLC v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. EL17-94-000 New York Power Authority v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and PJM Transmission Owners in their Collective Capacity. ER18-579-002 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ER18-680-000 (Not Consolidated) PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-5 EL18-146-000 KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company. E-6 EL15-95-003 Delaware Public Service Commission and Maryland Public Service Commission v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Certain Transmission Owners Designated under CTOA RS FERC No. 42. Gas G-1 OR14-4-002 Guttman Energy, Inc. and PBF Holding Company LLC v. Buckeye Pipe Line Company, L.P. and Laurel Pipe Line Company, L.P. Hydro H-1 OMITTED H-2 P-2114-296 Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington. H-3 P-12611-011 Verdant Power, LLC. Certificates C-1 CP17-80-000 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. C-2 CP18-10-000 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. C-3 CP17-441-000, CP17-441-001 Northwest Pipeline LLC. C-4 CP18-66-000
  • CP18-69-000
  • Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
  • Tristate NLA, LLC.
  • C-5 CP18-5-001 Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC. C-6 CP16-22-001 NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC. CP16-23-001 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP. CP16-24-001 DTE Gas Company. CP16-102-001 Vector Pipeline L.P. C-7 CP16-486-001 Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Issued: July 12, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15318 Filed 7-13-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1985-000.

    Applicants: Invenergy Solar Development North America LLC.

    Description: Request for Limited Waiver, et al. of Invenergy Solar Development North America LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180709-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1991-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Penelec et al submit revised WASPs, Service Agreement Nos. 4221, 4222, and 4223 to be effective 9/8/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180710-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1992-000.

    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1993-000

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA SA No. 5126; Queue No. AB1-169 to be effective 6/11/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5026.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1994-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NYISO & National Grid—amended/restated SGIA (SA2219) with Monroe County to be effective 6/26/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/11/18.

    Accession Number: 20180711-5033.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    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 11, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15197 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065; FRL 9980-91-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies” (EPA ICR No. 1643.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0264) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. 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:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0065, online using https://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.

    The 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:

    John Schaefer, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-0296; fax number: 919-541-4991; 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 https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and; (5) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: This information collection is an application from state, local, or tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) for delegation of regulations developed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The five options for delegation are (1) straight delegation, (2) rule adjustment, (3) rule substitution, (4) equivalency by permit, or (5) state program approval. The information is needed and used to determine if the entity submitting an application has met the criteria established in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. This information is necessary for the EPA Administrator to determine the acceptability of approving S/L/T's rules, requirements, or programs in lieu of the Federal CAA section 112 rules or programs. The collection of information is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are S/L/Ts participating in this voluntary program. These government establishments are classified as Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 9511 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 92411. No industries under any SIC or NAICS codes will be included among respondents.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of respondents: 119 S/L/Ts for maximum achievable control technology standards and 95 S/L/Ts for area source standards per year.

    Frequency of response: One time per delegation request.

    Total estimated burden: 30,383 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $1,587,350 (per year). This includes an estimated labor burden cost of $1,585,000 and an estimated cost of $2,350 for operation and maintenance costs resulting from photocopying and postage expenses.

    Changes in Estimates: Preliminary results indicate an increase of 588 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to an increase in the number of maximum achievable control technology standard promulgations compared to last period. We are still in the process of reviewing the key assumptions in the ICR that will affect the overall burden estimate. These include the number of delegation activities expected to occur during the upcoming collection period, the delegation options most likely to be used by the delegated S/L/Ts, and the burden associated with each of the options. Depending on the outcome of this review, there could be changes in the overall burden estimates.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. David Cozzie, Acting Director, Sector Policies and Program Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15204 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-10—Region 6] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permit for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Port Arthur Refinery, Jefferson County, Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final Order on Petition for objection to Clean Air Act title V operating permit.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order dated May 31, 2018, granting in part and denying in part a Petition dated November 8, 2016 from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Air Alliance Houston. The Petition requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva) for its Port Arthur Refinery located in Jefferson County, Texas.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information. You may review copies of the final Order, the Petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final Order and Petition are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyndall Cox, EPA Region 6, (214) 665-8567, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

    The EPA received the Petition from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Air Alliance Houston dated November 8, 2016, requesting that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit no. O1386, issued by TCEQ to Motiva's Port Arthur Refinery in Jefferson County, Texas. The Petition has six claims (1-6) that the proposed permit fails to require monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting sufficient to assure compliance with various emission limits and operational requirements for units authorized by New Source Review (NSR) permits and permits by rule (PBRs); one claim (7) that the proposed permit's incorporation by reference of permit by rule requirements fails to assure compliance with applicable requirements; and one claim (8) that the proposed permit fails to identify monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for emission units subject to NSPS and NESHAP federal rules.

    On May 31, 2018, the EPA Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Petition. The Order explains the basis for EPA's decision.

    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later than September 17, 2018.

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Anne L. Idsal, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15205 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft of a Classified Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 56: Classified Activities AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a classified Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 56: Classified Activities.

    Due to the classified nature of the proposal, the exposure draft will only be made available to those individuals who have been designated as having a need to know and who hold the proper clearances.

    Additionally, FASAB staff will hold two classified reading sessions for those individuals without SIPR accounts to review the exposure draft. Only those individuals who have been designated as having a need to know and hold the proper clearances will be allowed to attend.

    —Session I: Wednesday July 18, 2018 9:30-11:30 a.m. —Session II: Wednesday August 1, 2018 1:30-3:30 p.m.

    To request attendance at one of the reading sessions please contact Monica Valentine at [email protected] by July 16, 2018 for Session I and July 27, 2018 for Session II. Please provide your name, organization, and contact information.

    The Board requests comments on the exposure draft by August 13, 2018 and encourages respondents to provide responses to all of the questions raised and the reasons for their positions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15234 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0979] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before September 17, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0979.

    Title: License Audit Letter.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 25,000 respondents; 25,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534 and 535.

    Total Annual Burden: 12,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: Yes. Records of the Wireless Radio Services may include information about individuals or households, and the use(s) and disclosure of this information is governed by the requirements of a system of records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”. However, the Commission makes all information within the Wireless Radio Services publicly available on its Universal Licensing System (ULS) web page.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of their rules. Information within Wireless Radio Services is maintained in the Commission's system or records notice or `SORN', FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records”. These licensee records are publicly available and routinely used in accordance with subsection b of the Privacy Act of 1973, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), as amended. Material that is afforded confidential treatment pursuant to a request made under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules will not be available for public inspection. The Commission has in place the following policy and procedures for records retention and disposal: Records will be actively maintained as long as the individual remains a licensee. Paper records will be archived after being keyed or scanned into the system and destroyed when 12 years old; electronic records will be backed up and deleted twelve years after the licenses are no longer valid.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is seeking OMB approval for an extension of this information collection in order to obtain their full three-year approval. There is no change to the reporting requirement. There is no change to the Commission's burden estimates. The Wireless Telecommunications (WTB) and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureaus (PSHSB) of the FCC periodically conduct audits of the construction and/or operational status of various Wireless radio stations in its licensing database that are subject to rule-based construction and operational requirements. The Commission's rules for these Wireless services require construction within a specified timeframe and require a station to remain operational in order for the license to remain valid. The information will be used by FCC personnel to assure that licensees' stations are constructed and currently operating in accordance with the parameters of the current FCC authorization and rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15155 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 9, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. WNB Holding Company, Winona, Minnesota; to acquire First State Bank of Wabasha, Wabasha, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 12, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15236 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice of a determination concerning a petition to add a class of employees from the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC), in Fernald, Ohio, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 21, 2018, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:

    “(1) All employees of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area of the Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald, Ohio, from January 1, 1984, through December 31, 1989; and (2) all employees of the DOE, its predecessor agencies, National Lead of Ohio, or NLO, Inc., in any area of the Feed Materials Production Center from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1983.”

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C.7384q.

    John J. Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15094 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Determination Concerning a Petition To Add a Class of Employees to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice of a determination concerning a petition to add a class of employees from the Grand Junction Facilities, in Grand Junction, Colorado, to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 1-877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 21, 2018, the Secretary of HHS determined that the following class of employees does not meet the statutory criteria for addition to the SEC as authorized under EEOICPA:

    “All employees who worked in any area of the Grand Junction Facilities in Grand Junction, Colorado, from January 1, 1986, through July 31, 2010.”

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C.7384q.

    John J. Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15093 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier CMS-10008, CMS-R-234, and CMS-R-194] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 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 (the 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 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates 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 must be received by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number _________, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing.html.

    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:

    William Parham at (410) 786-4669.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10008 Eligibility of Drugs, Biologicals, and Radiopharmaceutical Agents for Transitional Pass-Through Status Under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) CMS-R-234 Subpart D-Private Contracts CMS-R-194 Medicare Disproportionate Share Adjustment Procedures and Criteria

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-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.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement with a change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Eligibility of Drugs, Biologicals, and Radiopharmaceutical Agents for Transitional Pass-Through Status Under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS); Use: Section 201(b) of the BBRA 1999 amended section 1833(t) of the Act by adding new section 1833(t)(6). This provision requires the Secretary to make additional payments to hospitals for a period of 2 to 3 years for certain drugs, radiopharmaceuticals, biological agents, medical devices and brachytherapy devices. Section 1833(t)(6)(A)(iv) establishes the criteria for determining the application of this provision to new items. Section 1833(t)(6)(C)(i) provides that the additional payment for drugs and biologicals be the amount by which the amount determined under section 1842(o) of the Act exceeds the portion of the otherwise applicable hospital outpatient department fee schedule amount that the Secretary determines to be associated with the drug or biological. Section 1833(t)(6)(D)(i) of the Act sets the payment rate for pass-through eligible drugs and biologicals (assuming that no pro rata reduction in pass-through payment is necessary) as the amount determined under section 1842(o) of the Act. Section 303(c) of Public Law 108-173 amended Title XVIII of the Act by adding new section 1847A. This new section establishes the use of the average sales price (ASP) methodology for payment for drugs and biologicals described in section 1842(o)(1)(C) of the Act furnished on or after January 1, 2005. Therefore, as we stated in the November 15, 2004 Federal Register (69 FR 65776), in CY 2005, we will pay under the OPPS for drugs, biologicals and radiopharmaceuticals with pass-through status consistent with the provisions of section 1842(o) of the Act as amended by Public Law 108-173 at a rate that is equivalent to the payment these drugs and biologicals will receive in the physician office setting, and established in accordance with the methodology described in the CY 2005 Physician Fee Schedule final rule. Information on Average Sales Price is found at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/. The intent of these provisions is to ensure that timely beneficiary access to new pharmacological technologies is not jeopardized by inadequate payment levels. Form Number: CMS-10008 (OMB Control Number 0938-0802); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 30; Total Annual Responses: 30; Total Annual Hours: 480. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Raymond Bulls at 410-786-7267).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Subpart D—Private Contracts; Use: Section 4507 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 1997) amended section 1802 of the Social Security Act (the Act) to permit certain physicians and practitioners to opt-out of Medicare and to provide through private contracts services that would otherwise be covered by Medicare. Under such contracts the mandatory claims submission and limiting charge rules of section 1848(g) of the Act would not apply. Subpart D and the supporting regulations contained in 42 CFR 405.410, 405.430, 405.435, 405.440, 405.445, and 405.455, counters the effect of certain provisions of Medicare law that, absent section 1802 of the Act, preclude physicians and practitioners from contracting privately with Medicare beneficiaries to pay without regard to Medicare limits. The most recent approval of this information collection request (ICR) was issued by the Office of Management and Budget on March 2, 2016. We are now seeking to renew this approval before it expires on March 31, 2019. We have made no changes to the information being collected. We updated our burden estimate to reflect changes in the number of physicians and practitioners who have opted out and refinements to our methodology for estimating the burden associated with contracts. We have also updated the cost estimate to account for the current Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wage estimates and to include the estimated costs for Medicare Advantage plans. Form Number: CMS-R-234 (OMB Control Number 0938-0730); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 57,722; Total Annual Responses: 57,722; Total Annual Hours: 23,557. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Frederick Grabau at 410-786-0206).

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without a change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Disproportionate Share Adjustment Procedures and Criteria; Use: Section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act established the Medicare disproportionate share adjustment (DSH) for hospitals, which provides additional payment to hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of the indigent patient population. This payment is an add-on to the set amount per case the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pays to hospitals under the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS). Under current regulations at 42 CFR 412.106, in order to meet the qualifying criteria for this additional DSH payment, a hospital must prove that a disproportionate percentage of its patients are low income using Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid as proxies for this determination. This percentage includes two computations: (1) The “Medicare fraction” or the “SSI ratio” which is the percent of patient days for beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicare Part A and SSI and (2) the “Medicaid fraction” which is the percent of patient days for patients who are eligible for Medicaid but not Medicare. Once a hospital qualifies for this DSH payment, CMS also determines a hospital's payment adjustment based on these two fractions. 42 CFR 412.106 allows hospitals to request that the Medicare fraction of the DSH adjustment be calculated on a cost reporting basis rather than a federal fiscal year. Once requested, the hospital must accept the result irrespective of whether it increases or decreases their DSH payment. The routine use procedure and the DUA allows hospitals to request the detailed Medicare data so they can make an informed choice before deciding whether to request that the Medicare fraction be calculated on the basis of a cost reporting period rather than a federal fiscal year. Form Number: CMS-R-194 (OMB Control Number 0938-0691); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 800; Total Annual Responses: 800; Total Annual Hours: 400. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Emily Lipkin at 410-786-3633).

    Dated: July 11, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15169 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-R-153] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' website address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Drug Use Review (DUR) Program; Use: States must provide for a review of drug therapy before each prescription is filled or delivered to a Medicaid patient. This review includes screening for potential drug therapy problems due to therapeutic duplication, drug-disease contraindications, drug-drug interactions, incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment, drug-allergy interactions, and clinical abuse/misuse. Pharmacists must make a reasonable effort to obtain, record, and maintain Medicaid patient profiles. These profiles must reflect at least the patient's name, address, telephone number, date of birth/age, gender, history, e.g., allergies, drug reactions, list of medications, and pharmacist's comments relevant to the individual's drug therapy.

    The State must conduct RetroDUR which provides for the ongoing periodic examination of claims data and other records in order to identify patterns of fraud, abuse, inappropriate or medically unnecessary care. Patterns or trends of drug therapy problems are identified and reviewed to determine the need for intervention activity with pharmacists and/or physicians. States may conduct interventions via telephone, correspondence, or face-to-face contact.

    Annual reports are submitted to CMS for the purposes of monitoring compliance and evaluating the progress of States' DUR programs. The information submitted by States is reviewed and results are compiled by CMS in a format intended to provide information, comparisons and trends related to States' experiences with DUR. The States benefit from the information and may enhance their programs each year based on State reported innovative practices that are compiled by CMS from the DUR annual reports. Form Number: CMS-R-153 (OMB control number: 0938-0659); Frequency: Yearly, quarterly, and occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 51; Total Annual Responses: 663; Total Annual Hours: 41,004. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Emeka Egwim at 410-786-1092.)

    Dated: July 12, 2018. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15220 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging ACTION:

    Notice of Intent to award a single supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing supplemental funding for the National Resource Center for Engaging Older Adults program. The National Resource Center for Engaging Older Adults program works to identify and disseminate information about emerging trends, resources, and replication strategies that the Aging Network can use and tailor in their communities to support the engagement of older adults. The purpose of this announcement is to award supplemental funds to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging to support staff and the development of enhanced resources and tools to support the Aging Network.

    Program Name: The National Resource Center for Engaging Older Adults.

    Award Amount: $62,000.

    Budget Period: 9/1/2018 to 8/31/2019.

    Award Type: Cooperative Agreement.

    Statutory Authority: The statutory authority for grants under this notice is contained in Title IV of the Older Americans Act (OAA) (42U.S.C. 3032), as amended by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 93.048 Discretionary Projects.

    I. Program Description

    The Administration on Aging, an agency of the U.S. Administration for Community Living, established the Engagement and Older Adults Resource Center to better ensure that the Aging Network has the tools and resources necessary for the development of programs that provide older adults effective ways to stay socially engaged. Through myriad approaches such as a website, webinars, fact sheets, and other materials the project is identifying, synthesizing, and disseminating innovative social engagements practices and programming.

    II. Justification for the Supplemental Funding

    In recent years with growing research demonstrating the correlation between social engagement and healthy aging, there has been an increase in the Aging Network's desire to seek new and innovative approaches to assist older adults remain active and engaged in the community. The Resource Center has been conducting webinars and identifying engagement resources to highlight on the Center's website, but there is a need for the project to accelerate the development of tools and resources, such as best practice profiles, fact sheets, and toolkits, to meet the needs of the Aging Network. The supplemental funding will be used to support additional staff to more rapidly identify successful engagement programs and strategies that can be shared with the aging network via the website, webinars, and other written products.

    III. Eligible Applicants: Current Grantee

    Evaluation Criteria: ACL will use the following evaluation criteria to ensure that proposed activities are within the approved scope and budget of the grant:

    Approach

    Is the purpose of the funding clearly described? Does it reflect a coherent and feasible approach for successfully achieving the identified outcome(s)? Is the project work plan clear and comprehensive? Does it include sensible and feasible timeframes for the accomplishment of tasks presented?

    Budget

    Is the budget justified with respect to the adequacy and reasonableness of resources requested? Are budget line items clearly delineated and consistent with project objectives?

    Project Impact

    Are the expected project benefits/results clear, realistic, and consistent with the objectives and purpose of the project?

    IV. Application Review Information

    Application will be reviewed by Federal staff.

    V. Agency Contact

    For further information or comments regarding this program expansion supplement, contact Sherri Clark, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201; telephone (202) 795-7327; email [email protected]

    Dated: July 6, 2018. Lance Robertson, Administrator and Assistant Secretary on Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15194 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Document Identifier OS-0990-0391] Agency Information Collection Request. 30-Day Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sherrette Funn, [email protected] or (202) 795-7714. When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-0391 and Hospital Preparedness Program Data Collection for reference.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Title of the Collection: Hospital Preparedness Program.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0391.

    Abstract: The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) within the Division of National Healthcare Preparedness Programs (NHPP), in the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), in the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking clearance by the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) for an extension on Generic Data Collection Form. The Generic Data Collection Form will serve as the foundation for assessment and evaluation for HPP stakeholders, recipients, and sub-recipient programs and performance under the HPP Cooperative Agreement (CA) Program.

    Program data are gathered from recipients for both ad-hoc episodic reporting as well as required reporting as part of the HPP Cooperative Agreement. Ad-hoc reporting includes but is not limited to Coalition Assessment Tool (CAT) Data Collection Tool, Impact Survey, HPP Partner Survey, CA after action reports, Ebola and Other Special Pathogens. Required reporting include Mid-Year and End-of-Year Progress Reports and other similar information collections (ICs) that account for recipient spending and program performance on all activities conducted in pursuit of achieving the HPP Cooperative Agreement goals.

    This generic data collection effort is crucial to HPP's decision-making process regarding the continued existence, design and funding levels of this program. Results from these data analyses enable HPP to monitor health care emergency preparedness and progress towards national preparedness and response goals. HPP supports priorities outlined by the National Preparedness Goal (the Goal) established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2005.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Table Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    All program recipients with supporting data submitted by sub-recipients and participating HCCs and HPP stakeholders 62 1 58 3,596 Total 62 1 58 3,596
    Terry Clark, Asst Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15185 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-37-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Document Identifier OS-0937-0166] Agency Information Collection Request; 60-Day Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 795-7714.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference, to [email protected], or call the Reports Clearance Officer.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Title of the Collection: HHS 42 CFR subpart B; Sterilization of Persons in Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects;

    Type of Collection: Extension;

    OMB No.: 0937-0166.

    Abstract: This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection for the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements codified at 42 CFR part 50, subpart B (“Sterilization of Persons in Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects”). The consent form solicits information to assure voluntary and informed consent to persons undergoing sterilization in programs of health services which are supported by federal financial assistance administered by the PHS. It provides additional procedural protection to the individual and the regulation requires that the consent form be a copy of the form that is appended to the PHS regulation. In 2003, the PHS sterilization consent form was revised to conform to OMB government-wide standards for the collection of race/ethnicity data and to incorporate the PRA burden statement as part of the consent form. We are requesting a three-year extension.

    Type of respondent: Individuals seeking sterilization. Frequency: Once; prior to procedure.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Forms Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondents
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Information Disclosure for Sterilization Consent Form Citizens Seeking Sterilization 100,000 1 1 1000,000 Record-keeping for Sterilization Consent Form Citizens Seeking Sterilization 100,000 1 15/60 25,000 Total 125,000
    Terry Clark, Asst Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15187 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [Document Identifier OS-0990-0430, 0431, 0432, 0433, 0434, 0436] Agency Information Collection Request. 60-Day Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed extensions of collections for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 795-7714.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D and project title for reference, to [email protected], or call the Reports Clearance Officer.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Title of the Collection: Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0430—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition.

    Abstract: Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks: Performance of HHS mission requires the support of contractors. In some circumstances, depending on the requirements of the specific contract, the contractor is tasked to provide personnel who will be dealing with children under the age of 18. After contract award contractor personnel must undergo a background check as required by HHS Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) 337.103(d)(3) and the clause at HHSAR 352.237-72 Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks before working on the contract as required by federal law (Crime Control Act of 1990). The contractor is therefore required to provide information on the individual so that a proper background check can be performed.

    The Agency is requesting a 3 year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 160 160 1 160

    Title of the Collection: Acquisitions Involving Human Subjects.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0431—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition.

    Abstract: Acquisitions Involving Human Subjects: Performance of HHS mission requires the support of contractors involving human subjects. Before awarding a contract to any contractor that will need to use human subjects, the Contracting Officer is required to verify that, the contractor holds a valid Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) approved by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). The provisions are implemented via contract clauses found at HHSAR 352.270-4a (Protection of Human Subjects), the clause at HHSAR 352.270-4b (Protection of Human Subjects), the provision at HHSAR 352.270-10 (Notice to Offerors—Protection of Human Subjects, Research Involving Human Subjects Committee (RIHSC) Approval of Research Protocols Required), and the clause at HHSAR 352.270-11 (Protection of Human Subjects—Research Involving Human Subjects Committee (RIHSC) Approval of Research Protocols Required).

    The Agency is requesting a 3-year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 90 318 5 1590

    Title of the Collection: Acquisitions Involving the Use of Laboratory Animals.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0432—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition.

    Abstract: Acquisitions Involving the Use of Laboratory Animals: Performance of HHS mission requires the use of live vertebrate animals. Before awarding a contract to any contractor, which will need to use live vertebrate animals, the Contracting Officer is required to verify that the contractor holds a valid Animal Welfare Assurance from the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) within NIH. Contractors are required to file the appropriate forms to obtain this approval. The applicable clauses are found at HHSAR 352.270-5a (Notice to Offerors of Requirement for Compliance with the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals), and the clause at HHSAR 352.270-5b (Care of Live Vertebrate Animals).

    The Agency is requesting a 3-year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    36 41 3 123

    Title of the Collection: Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No. 0990-0433—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition

    Abstract: Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act: Performance of IHS mission requires the support of contractors. In some circumstances, depending on the requirements of the specific contract, the contractor is tasked to provide personnel who will be dealing with Indian children under the age of 18. After contract award contractor personnel must undergo a background check as required by HHSAR 337.103(d)(4) and the clause at HHSAR 352.237-73 Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act before working on the contract as required by federal law (Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Act (ICPFVA)). The contractor is therefore required to provide information on the individual so that a proper background check can be performed, as stated in the HHS Acquisition Regulation.

    The Agency is requesting a 3-year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 40 160 1 160

    Title of the Collection: Meetings, Conferences, and Seminars.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0434—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition.

    Abstract: Meetings, Conferences, and Seminars: Performance of HHS mission requires the support of contractors. In some circumstances, depending on the requirements of the specific contract, the contractor is tasked to conduct meetings, conferences, and seminars. HHSAR 311.7101(a) (Responsibilities) and the clause at HHSAR 352.211-1 (Accessibility of meetings, conferences and seminars to persons with disabilities) require contractors to provide a plan describing the contractor's ability to meet the accessibility standards in 28 CFR part 36. HHSAR 311.7202(b) (Responsibilities) and the clause at HHSAR 352.211-2 (Conference sponsorship request and conference materials disclaimer) require contractors to provide funding disclosure and a content disclaimer statement on conference materials. As a result of these clauses, HHS contractors providing conference, meeting, or seminars services are required to provide specific information to HHS as stated in the HHS Acquisition Regulation.

    The Agency is requesting a 3-year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 1604 1604 1 1604

    Title of the Collection: Contractor Collection of Information.

    Type of Collection: Extension.

    OMB No.: 0990-0436—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of Grants and Acquisition Policy, and Accountability, Division of Acquisition.

    Abstract: Contractor Collection of Information: Performance of HHS mission requires the support of contractors. In some circumstances, depending on the requirements of the specific contract, the contractor is tasked to gather data that involves requesting this data from sources outside of HHS (i.e., the public). In those circumstances HHSAR 352.211-3 Paperwork Reduction Act is included in the contract and prevents the contractor from initiating the solicitation of information from third parties unless and until a proper clearance from OMB has been obtained, specific to that data collection. This clearance covers the data collection necessary to determine what information should be collected in order to prepare the contract-specific OMB clearance request as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act or 1995 44 U.S.C. 3501, and as stated in the HHS Acquisition Regulation.

    The Agency is requesting a 3-year extension to collect this information from public or private businesses.

    Annualized Burden Hour Table Number of respondents Total
  • annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 1 1 1 1
    Terry Clark, Asst. Paperwork Reduction Act Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15186 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: International and Cooperative Projects 1.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brian H. Scott, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7490, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; AR16-215: Model Organisms to Predict Treatment Outcomes for Disorders Associated With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

    Date: July 25, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Pat Manos, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5200, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892,

    301-408-9866, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Aging Neuronal and Non-Neuronal Studies and Other Topics.

    Date: August 6, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Suzan Nadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217B, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1259, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Vision Impairment, Optic Neuropathy, Retinopathies and Cornea Responses to Wound and Infections.

    Date: August 8, 2018.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Alessandra C. Rovescalli, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Rm 5205 MSC7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1021, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 11, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15189 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias.

    Date: July 27, 2018.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Richard D Crosland, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4190, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-694-7084, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR-18-596: Research on Current Topics in Alzheimer's Disease and Its Related Dementias (Human Studies).

    Date: July 30, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Samuel C Edwards, Ph.D., Chief, BDCN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1246, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflicts: Respiratory Sciences.

    Date: August 1, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ghenima Dirami, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-498-7546, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: AIDS and Related Research.

    Date: August 7, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Kenneth A Roebuck, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1166, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 11, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15188 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Name of the meeting: Biomedical Assay Laboratory for the Division of Intramural Population Health Research (DIPHR).

    Date: August 1, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Bethesda Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Children's Study (NCS) Biological and Environmental Sample Repository.

    Date: August 6, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Bethesda Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Chemical Screening and Optimization Facility.

    Date: August 8, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Bethesda Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Male and Female Contraceptive Development SIBR.

    Date: August 15, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Bethesda Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 10, 2018. Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15190 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) on August 1, 2018.

    The meeting will include discussions on assessing SAMHSA's current strategies and a discussion on American Indian/Native American women with behavioral health needs. Additionally, the ACWS will be speaking with the Assistant Secretary of Mental Health and Substance Use regarding priorities and directions around behavioral health services and access for women and children.

    The meeting is open to the public and will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, in Conference Room 5E29. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person by July 24, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before July 24, 2018. Up to five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    The meeting may be accesed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with SAMHSA's Designated Federal Officer, Ms. Valerie Kolick.

    Substantive meeting information and a roster of ACWS members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Committees' Web https://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/meetings, or by contacting Ms. Kolick.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS).

    Date/Time/Type: Wednesday, August 1, 2018, from: 9:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. EDT, Open.

    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Conference Room 5E29, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Contact: Valerie Kolick, Designated Federal Official, SAMHSA's Advisory Committee for Women's Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (240) 276-1738, Email: [email protected]

    Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15227 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Quarterly IRS Interest Rates Used in Calculating Interest on Overdue Accounts and Refunds on Customs Duties AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public that the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties will remain the same from the previous quarter. For the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2018, the interest rates for overpayments will be 4 percent for corporations and 5 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 5 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.

    DATES:

    The rates announced in this notice are applicable as of July 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawn Kaus, Revenue Division, Collection Refunds & Analysis Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 614-4485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 provides different interest rates applicable to overpayments: One for corporations and one for non-corporations.

    The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

    In Revenue Ruling 2018-18, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2018, and ending on September 30, 2018. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of five percent (5%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of four percent (4%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (2%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of five percent (5%). These interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties are the same from the previous quarter. These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2018.

    For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

    Beginning date Ending date Under-
  • payments
  • (percent)
  • Over-
  • payments
  • (percent)
  • Corporate
  • overpayments
  • (eff. 1-1-99)
  • (percent)
  • 070174 063075 6 6 070175 013176 9 9 020176 013178 7 7 020178 013180 6 6 020180 013182 12 12 020182 123182 20 20 010183 063083 16 16 070183 123184 11 11 010185 063085 13 13 070185 123185 11 11 010186 063086 10 10 070186 123186 9 9 010187 093087 9 8 100187 123187 10 9 010188 033188 11 10 040188 093088 10 9 100188 033189 11 10 040189 093089 12 11 100189 033191 11 10 040191 123191 10 9 010192 033192 9 8 040192 093092 8 7 100192 063094 7 6 070194 093094 8 7 100194 033195 9 8 040195 063095 10 9 070195 033196 9 8 040196 063096 8 7 070196 033198 9 8 040198 123198 8 7 010199 033199 7 7 6 040199 033100 8 8 7 040100 033101 9 9 8 040101 063001 8 8 7 070101 123101 7 7 6 010102 123102 6 6 5 010103 093003 5 5 4 100103 033104 4 4 3 040104 063004 5 5 4 070104 093004 4 4 3 100104 033105 5 5 4 040105 093005 6 6 5 100105 063006 7 7 6 070106 123107 8 8 7 010108 033108 7 7 6 040108 063008 6 6 5 070108 093008 5 5 4 100108 123108 6 6 5 010109 033109 5 5 4 040109 123110 4 4 3 010111 033111 3 3 2 040111 093011 4 4 3 100111 033116 3 3 2 040116 033118 4 4 3 040118 093018 5 5 4
    Dated: July 11, 2018. Samuel D. Grable, Assistant Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer, Office of Finance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15179 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0096] Agency Information Collection Activities: Transfer of Cargo to a Container Station AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than September 17, 2018) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0096 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Transfer of Cargo to a Container Station.

    OMB Number: 1651-0096.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: Before the filing of an entry of merchandise for the purpose of breaking bulk and redelivering cargo, containerized cargo may be moved from the place of unlading to a designated container station or may be received directly at the container station from a bonded carrier after transportation in-bond in accordance with 19 CFR 19.41. This also applies to loose cargo as part of containerized cargo. In accordance with 19 CFR 19.42, the container station operator may make a request for the transfer of a container to the station by submitting to CBP an abstract of the manifest for the transferred containers including the bill of lading number, marks, numbers, description of the contents and consignee.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 14,327.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 25.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 358,175.

    Estimated Time per Response: 7 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,548.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15249 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0002] Agency Information Collection Activities: General Declaration AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than September 17, 2018) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0002 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: General Declaration (Outward/Inward) Agriculture, Customs, Immigration, and Public Health.

    OMB Number: 1651-0002.

    Form Number: Form 7507.

    Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours. There is no change to the information collected or CBP Form 7507.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Abstract: An aircraft commander or agent must file CBP Form 7507, General Declaration (Outward/Inward) Agriculture, Customs, Immigration, and Public Health at the time of arrival for all aircraft required to enter pursuant to 19 CFR 122.41 and at the time of clearance for all aircraft departing to a foreign area with commercial airport cargo pursuant to 19 CFR 122.72. This form is used to document clearance and inspections by appropriate regulatory agency staffs. CBP Form 7507 collects information about the flight routing, the number of passengers embarking and disembarking, the number of crew members, a declaration of health for the persons on board, and details about disinfecting and sanitizing treatments during the flight. This form also includes a declaration attesting to the accuracy, completeness, and truthfulness of all statements contained in the form and in any document attached to the form.

    CBP Form 7507 is authorized by 42 U.S.C 268, 19 U.S.C. 1431, 1433, and 1644a; and provided for by 19 CFR 122.43, 122.52, 122.54, 122.73, 122.144, 42 CFR 71.21 and 71.32. This form is accessible at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=7507&=Apply.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 1,322,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 110,122.6.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15250 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) David I. Maurstad, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case
  • No.
  • Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Date of modification Community
  • No.
  • Colorado: Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Town of Castle Rock (17-08-1320P) The Honorable Jennifer Green, Mayor, Town of Castle Rock, 100 North Wilcox Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Utilities Department, 175 Kellogg Court, Castle Rock, CO 80104 June 1, 2018 080050 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (17-08-1320P) The Honorable Roger Partridge, Chairman, Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 Douglas County Planning Department, 100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 June 1, 2018 080049 Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Westminster (17-08-1102P) The Honorable Herb Atchison, Mayor, City of Westminster, 4800 West 92nd Avenue, Westminster, CO 80031 City Hall, 4800 West 92nd Avenue, Westminster, CO 80031 June 8, 2018 080008 Connecticut: Fairfield (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Norwalk (17-01-2751P) The Honorable Harry W. Rilling, Mayor, City of Norwalk, 125 East Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06851 Planning and Zoning Department, 125 East Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06851 May 29, 2018 090012 Fairfield (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Town of Trumbull (17-01-1576P) The Honorable Vicki A. Tesoro, First Selectman, Town of Trumbull Board of Selectmen, 5866 Main Street, Trumbull, CT 06611 Town Hall, 5866 Main Street, Trumbull, CT 06611 June 1, 2018 090017 Delaware: Kent (FEMA Docket No.: B-1810) City of Dover (17-03-0901P) The Honorable Robin R. Christiansen, Mayor, City of Dover, P.O. Box 475, Dover, DE 19903 Department of Planning and Inspection, 15 Lookerman Plaza, Dover, DE 19901 June 4, 2018 100006 Florida: Duval (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Jacksonville (17-04-6148P) The Honorable Lenny Curry, Mayor, City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32002 Development Services Department, 214 North Hogan Street, Suite 2100, Jacksonville, FL 32002 May 29, 2018 120077 Lee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Town of Fort Myers Beach (17-04-7870P) The Honorable Dennis C. Boback, Mayor, Town of Fort Myers Beach, 2525 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931 Community Development Department, 2525 Estero Boulevard, Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931 June 7, 2018 120673 Manatee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Bradenton Beach (18-04-0582P) The Honorable John Chappie, Mayor, City of Bradenton Beach, 107 Gulf Drive North, Bradenton Beach, FL 34217 Building and Planning Department, 107 Gulf Drive North, Bradenton Beach, FL 34217 June 6, 2018 125091 Pasco (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Port Richey (18-04-0510P) The Honorable Dale Massad, Mayor, City of Port Richey, 6333 Ridge Road, Port Richey, FL 34668 Building and Development Services Department, 6333 Ridge Road, Port Richey, FL 34668 May 31, 2018 120234 Georgia: Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Douglasville (17-04-6806P) The Honorable Rochelle Robinson, Mayor, City of Douglasville, 6695 Church Street, Douglasville, GA 30134 City Hall, 6695 Church Street, Douglasville, GA 30134 June 4, 2018 130305 Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Unincorporated areas of Douglas County (17-04-6806P) The Honorable Ramona Jackson Jones, Chairman, Douglas County Board of Commissioners, 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA 30134 Douglas County Development Services Department, 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA 30134 June 4, 2018 130306 Kentucky: Fayette (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (18-04-0043P) The Honorable Jim Gray, Mayor, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, KY 40507 LFUCG Phoenix Building, 101 East Vine Street, Lexington, KY 40507 June 7, 2018 210067 Montana: Big Horn (FEMA Docket No.: B-1810) Unincorporated areas of Big Horn County (17-08-0336P) The Honorable Chad Fenner, Chairman, Big Horn County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 908, Hardin, MT 59034 Big Horn County Health Department, 809 North Custer Avenue, Hardin, MT 59034 June 1, 2018 300143 Oklahoma: Tulsa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Tulsa (18-06-0209P) The Honorable G.T. Bynum, Mayor, City of Tulsa, 175 East 2nd Street, 15th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103 Planning and Development Department, 175 East 2nd Street, 4th Floor, Tulsa, OK 74103 May 29, 2018 405381 South Carolina: Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Columbia (17-04-5518P) The Honorable Stephen K. Benjamin, Mayor, City of Columbia, P.O. Box 147, Columbia, SC 29217 Department of Utilities and Engineering, 1136 Washington Street, Columbia, SC 29201 May 29, 2018 450172 Richland (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Forest Acres (17-04-5518P) The Honorable Frank Brunson, Mayor, City of Forest Acres, 5209 North Trenholm Road, Forest Acres, SC 29206 City Hall, 5209 North Trenholm Road, Forest Acres, SC 29206 May 29, 2018 450174 Texas: Bell (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Belton (17-06-2281P) The Honorable Marion Grayson, Mayor, City of Belton, P.O. Box 120, Belton, TX 76513 City Hall, 333 Water Street, Belton, TX 76513 June 8, 2018 480028 Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of San Antonio (17-06-2974P) The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 June 6, 2018 480045 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Dallas (17-06-3383P) The Honorable Michael S. Rawlings, Mayor, City of Dallas, 1500 Marilla Street, Suite 5EN, Dallas, TX 75201 Floodplain Management Department, 320 East Jefferson Boulevard, Room 301, Dallas, TX 75203 May 29, 2018 480171 Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Farmers Branch (17-06-3383P) The Honorable Robert C. Dye, Mayor, City of Farmers Branch, 13000 William Dodson Parkway, Farmers Branch, TX 75234 City Hall, 13000 William Dodson Parkway, Farmers Branch, TX 75234 May 29, 2018 480174 Ellis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Waxahachie (17-06-1666P) The Honorable Kevin Strength, Mayor, City of Waxahachie, 401 South Rogers Street, Waxahachie, TX 75165 Public Works Department, 401 South Rogers Street, Waxahachie, TX 75165 May 31, 2018 480211 Ellis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Unincorporated areas of Ellis County (17-06-1666P) The Honorable Carol Bush, Ellis County Judge, 101 West Main Street, Waxahachie, TX 75165 Ellis County Courthouse, 101 West Main Street, Waxahachie, TX 75165 May 31, 2018 480798 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Town of Westlake (17-06-3364P) The Honorable Laura Wheat, Mayor, Town of Westlake, 1500 Solana Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 7200, Westlake, TX 76262 Planning and Development Department, 1500 Solana Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 7200, Westlake, TX 76262 May 31, 2018 480614 Williamson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Leander (17-06-3902P) The Honorable Christopher Fielder, Mayor, City of Leander, P.O. Box 319, Leander, TX 78646 City Hall, 200 West Willis Street, Leander, TX 78641 June 8, 2018 481536 Virginia: Stafford (FEMA Docket No.: B-1810) Unincorporated areas of Stafford County (17-03-2308P) Mr. Thomas C. Foley, Stafford County Administrator, P.O. Box 339, Stafford, VA 22555 Stafford County Department of Planning and Zoning, 1300 Courthouse Road, Stafford, VA 22554 May 31, 2018 510154 Wise (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) City of Norton (18-03-0175P) The Honorable William J. Mays, Mayor, City of Norton, P.O. Box 618, Norton, VA 24273 City Hall, 618 Virginia Avenue Northwest, Norton, VA 24273 June 6, 2018 510108 Wise (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816) Unincorporated areas of Wise County (18-03-0175P) Mr. Shannon C. Scott, Wise County Administrator, P.O. Box 570, Wise, VA 24293 Wise County Building and Zoning Department, 206 East Main Street, Room 210, Wise, VA 24293 June 6, 2018 510174
    [FR Doc. 2018-15211 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0018; OMB No. 1660-0131] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Reporting Tool AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address [email protected] or Dante Randazzo, Supervisory Emergency Management Specialist, FEMA, National Preparedness Assessment Division, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on March 13, 2018 at 83 FR 10864 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received a total of 17 public comments, 11 were anonymous public comments that were not relevant to the information collection.

    Three commenters suggested that FEMA use the Tribal Consultation process for information collection 1660-0131. Two commenters stated that FEMA should not be placing additional unfunded requirements for Tribes to participate in the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP). One commenter stated that a Tribe should not be charged for FEMA's help and should be able to obtain help without any penalties. Two commenters stated that the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to meet its treaty obligations to all Tribes by providing for base level capability and capacities.

    FEMA's Response: The information collection was not revised because of the comments as in 2017, FEMA involved Tribal partners in our discussions about the Threat and Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA)-Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) methodology (ultimately FEMA received feedback from over 150 State, local, Tribal, and territorial representatives), and used their input to update the process. On April 10, 2018 and April 12, 2018, FEMA provided an overview of the updated THIRA/SPR methodology that included a detailed walkthrough of the specific requirements for THSGP recipients. Tribal participants had an opportunity to ask questions and share concerns about the updated methodology. On June 4, 2018, FEMA released a fact sheet outlining the requirements for THSGP recipients.

    While THSGP recipients, generally 24 Tribes each year, will now have to complete the SPR in addition to the THIRA, FEMA has determined that the new Tribal requirements will not only likely decrease their reporting burden, but produce more useful information Tribes can use to support other emergency management activities. FEMA will also be able to use this information to improve the support it offers to Tribes. Previously, when THSGP recipients were required to complete only the THIRA, they had to address all 32 core capabilities. This year, as they complete the THIRA and SPR, THSGP recipients will only be required to address 8 of the 32 core capabilities. Therefore, Tribal Governments' estimated average burden per response (in hours) has decreased from 408 to 290 hours. Only THSGP recipients are required to complete the THIRA/SPR, but FEMA encourages other Tribes to do so as well.

    FEMA is hosting three in-person technical assistance sessions this year to help communities understand and complete the THIRA/SPR, and offered invitational travel for grantees required to complete the THIRA/SPR. The technical assistance sessions themselves are free for communities to attend, with no admission fee, nor are there any penalties for obtaining FEMA's help.

    FEMA is also developing tools, materials, and guidance to help communities learn and complete the new methodology. Communities requiring assistance with their THIRA/SPR can also reach out to their Regional Preparedness Analysts and Planning Officers or the THIRA/SPR helpdesk at [email protected] These materials and services are provided at no cost to Tribes or other communities. It is also important to note that completing the THIRA and SPR are allowable expenses under the grant award. FEMA acknowledges the inherent sovereignty of Tribal governments, the trust responsibility of the Federal Government, and the nation-to-nation relationship between the U.S. government and Tribal governments as established by the U.S. Constitution, statutes, treaties, court decisions, executive orders, regulations, and policies as a foundation of the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program.

    The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA)—Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Reporting Tool.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0131.

    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 008-0-19 (THIRA), Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) Reporting Tool; FEMA Form 008-0-20 (SPR), Stakeholder Preparedness Review (SPR) Reporting Tool; FEMA Form 008-0-23, THIRA/SPR After-Action Call Questions.

    Abstract: The assessment is structured by the 32 core capabilities from the 2015 National Preparedness Goal. States, Territories, urban areas, and Tribes provide information on capability targets, their current capability levels and capability gaps for each core capability. Respondent States, Territories, Tribes and urban areas gather the information and complete the THIRA and SPR following the “Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 201, Third Edition.”

    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 113.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 113.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 84,414.

    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $4,328,749.92.

    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $12,404,962.

    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $2,648,063.63.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Tammi Hines, Privacy Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15219 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-46-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4372-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Massachusetts; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-4372-DR), dated June 25, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued June 25, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 25, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts resulting from a severe winter storm and flooding during the period of March 2-3, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Barnstable, Bristol, Essex, Nantucket, Norfolk, and Plymouth Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15223 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4369-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Alaska; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4369-DR), dated June 8, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued June 8, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 8, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Alaska resulting from a severe storm on December 4, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Alaska.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. Dargan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Alaska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The Kenai Peninsula Borough for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Alaska are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15218 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1840] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) David I. Maurstad, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Online location of letter of map revision Date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Alabama: Mobile City of Semmes (18-04-1945P) The Honorable David Baker, Mayor, City of Semmes, P.O. Box 1757, Semmes, AL 36575 City Hall, 7875 Moffett Road, Unit F, Semmes, AL 36575 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sept. 10, 2018 015016 Mobile Unincorporated areas of Mobile County (18-04-1945P) The Honorable Connie Hudson, Chair, Mobile County Board of Commissioners, 205 Government Street, Mobile, AL 36644 Mobile County Engineering Department, 205 Government Street, Mobile, AL 36644 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sept. 10, 2018 015008 Colorado: Arapahoe City of Aurora (18-08-0169P) The Honorable Steve Hogan, Mayor, City of Aurora, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, 5th Floor, Aurora, CO 80012 Engineering Department, 15151 East Alameda Parkway, Suite 3200, Aurora, CO 80012 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 080002 Arapahoe City of Centennial (18-08-0169P) The Honorable Stephanie Piko, Mayor, City of Centennial, 13133 East Arapahoe Road, Centennial, CO 80112 Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority, 76 Inverness Drive East, Suite A, Englewood, CO 80112 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 080315 Arapahoe Unincorporated areas of Arapahoe County (18-08-0169P) The Honorable Jeff Baker, Chairman, Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners, 5334 South Prince Street, Littleton, CO 80120 Arapahoe County Public Works and Development Department, 6924 South Lima Street, Centennial, CO 80112 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 080011 Boulder City of Boulder (18-08-0166P) The Honorable Suzanne Jones, Mayor, City of Boulder, P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306 Planning and Development Services Department, 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 3, 2018 080024 Eagle Town of Basalt (17-08-1316P) Mr. Ryan Mahoney, Manager, Town of Basalt, 101 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621 Town Hall, 101 Midland Avenue, Basalt, CO 81621 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 080052 Eagle Unincorporated areas of Eagle County (17-08-1316P) The Honorable Kathy Chandler-Henry, Chair, Eagle County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 850, Eagle, CO 81631 Eagle County Building and Engineering Department, 500 Broadway Street, Eagle, CO 81631 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 080051 El Paso Unincorporated areas of El Paso County (18-08-0013P) The Honorable Darryl Glenn, President, El Paso County, Board of Commissioners, 200 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 100, Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, 2880 International Circle, Colorado Springs, CO 80910 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 3, 2018 080059 Jefferson City of Westminster (18-08-0279P) The Honorable Herb Atchison, Mayor, City of Westminster, 4800 West 92nd Avenue, Westminster, CO 80031 Engineering Department, 4800 West 92nd Avenue, Westminster, CO 80031 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 21, 2018 080008 Larimer Town of Wellington (17-08-1283P) The Honorable Troy Hamman, Mayor, Town of Wellington, P.O. Box 127, Wellington, CO 80549 Town Hall, 3735 Cleveland Avenue, Wellington, CO 80549 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 9, 2018 080008 Larimer Unincorporated areas of Larimer County (17-08-1283P) The Honorable Steve Johnson, Chairman, Larimer County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Larimer County Engineering Department, 200 West Oak Street, Suite 3000, Fort Collins, CO 80522 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 9, 2018 080008 Pitkin Unincorporated areas of Pitkin County (17-08-1316P) The Honorable Patti Clapper, Chair, Pitkin County Board of Commissioners, 123 Emma Road, Suite 106, Basalt, CO 81621 Pitkin County Building Community Development Department, 130 South Galena Street, 3rd Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 080287 Florida: Broward City of Fort Lauderdale (18-04-3005P) The Honorable Dean J. Trantalis, Mayor, City of Fort Lauderdale, 100 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311 Building Services Department, 700 Northwest 19th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 3, 2018 125105 Broward Unincorporated areas of Broward County (18-04-3005P) The Honorable Bertha Henry, Administrator, Broward County, 115 South Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Broward County Environmental Engineering and Permitting Division, 1 North University Drive, Plantation, FL 33324 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 3, 2018 125093 Collier City of Naples (18-04-2880P) The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples, 735 8th Street South, Naples, FL 34102 Building Department, 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 19, 2018 125130 Collier City of Naples (18-04-3246P) The Honorable Bill Barnett, Mayor, City of Naples, 735 8th Street South, Naples, FL 34102 Building Department, 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 12, 2018 125130 Orange Unincorporated areas of Orange County (17-04-3962P) The Honorable Teresa Jacobs, Mayor, Orange County, 201 South Rosalind Avenue, 5th Floor, Orlando, FL 32801 Orange County Stormwater Management Department, 4200 South John Young Parkway, Orlando, FL 32839 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 4, 2018 120179 Osceola Unincorporated areas of Osceola County (18-04-3037X) The Honorable Fred Hawkins, Jr., Chairman, Osceola County Board of Commissioners, 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700, Kissimmee, FL 34741 Osceola County Stormwater Department, 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 1400, Kissimmee, FL 34741 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 120189 Pinellas Town of Indian Shores (18-04-2638P) The Honorable Patrick Soranno, Mayor, Town of Indian Shores, 19305 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, FL 33785 Building Department, 19305 Gulf Boulevard, Indian Shores, FL 33785 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 125118 Sarasota Unincorporated areas of Sarasota County (18-04-3583P) The Honorable Nancy C. Detert, Chair, Sarasota County Board of Commissioners, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, FL 34236 Sarasota County Planning and Development Services Department, 1001 Sarasota Center Boulevard, Sarasota, FL 34240 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 1, 2018 125144 Georgia: Catoosa City of Fort Oglethorpe (18-04-2533P) The Honorable Earl Gray, Mayor, City of Fort Oglethorpe, 500 City Hall Drive, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742 Building, Planning and Zoning Department, 500 City Hall Drive, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 13, 2018 130248 Catoosa Unincorporated areas of Catoosa County (18-04-2533P) The Honorable Steven Henry, Chairman, Catoosa County Board of Commissioners, 800 Lafayette Street, Ringgold, GA 30736 Catoosa County Planning and Inspections Department, 184 Tiger Trail, Ringgold, GA 30736 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 13, 2018 130028 Kentucky: Hardin City of Elizabethtown (18-04-2385P) The Honorable Edna Berger, Mayor, City of Elizabethtown, P.O. Box 550, Elizabethtown, KY 42702 Department of Stormwater Management, 200 West Dixie Avenue, Elizabethtown, KY 42702 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 210095 Maryland: Baltimore Unincorporated areas of Baltimore County (17-03-2477P) The Honorable Kevin Kamenetz, Baltimore County Executive, 400 Washington Avenue, Towson, MD 21204 Baltimore County Planning Department, 105 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 101, Towson, MD 21204 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 19, 2018 240010 Mississippi: Rankin City of Brandon (18-04-0648P) The Honorable Butch Lee, Mayor, City of Brandon, 1000 Municipal Drive, Brandon, MS 39042 City Hall, 1000 Municipal Drive, Brandon, MS 39042 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 14, 2018 280143 Rankin City of Pearl (18-04-0648P) The Honorable Jake Windham, Mayor, City of Pearl, 2420 Old Brandon Road, Pearl, MS 39208 Community Development Department, 2420 Old Brandon Road, Pearl, MS 39208 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 14, 2018 280145 New Hampshire: Cheshire Town of Jaffrey (17-01-2389P) Mr. Jon Frederick, Manager, Town of Jaffrey, 10 Goodnow Street, Jaffrey, NH 03452 Town Hall, 10 Goodnow Street, Jaffrey, NH 03452 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 330215 New Mexico: Bernalillo City of Albuquerque (18-06-0370P) The Honorable Tim Keller, Mayor, City of Albuquerque, P.O. Box 1293, Albuquerque, NM 87103 Development Review Services Division, 600 2nd Street Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 12, 2018 350002 Bernalillo Unincorporated areas of Bernalillo County (18-06-0370P) Ms. Julie Morgas Baca, Bernalillo County Manager, 1 Civic Plaza Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102 Bernalillo County Public Works Division, 2400 Broadway Boulevard Southeast, Albuquerque, NM 87102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 12, 2018 350001 North Dakota: Cass City of Fargo (17-08-1355P) The Honorable Tim Mahoney, Mayor, City of Fargo, 200 3rd Street North, Fargo, ND 58102 City Hall, 200 3rd Street North, Fargo, ND 58102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 18, 2018 385364 Ohio: Warren City of Mason (17-05-6435P) The Honorable Victor Kidd, Mayor, City of Mason, 6000 Mason Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040 City Hall, 6000 Mason Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 10, 2018 390559 Rhode Island: Bristol Town of Barrington (18-01-0572P) Mr. James J. Cunha, Manager, Town of Barrington, 283 County Road, Barrington, RI 02806 Town Hall, 283 County Road, Barrington, RI 02806 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 6, 2018 445392 South Dakota: Codington City of Watertown (18-08-0263P) The Honorable Sarah Caron, Mayor, City of Watertown, P.O. Box 910, Watertown, SD 57201 Engineering Department, 23 2nd Street Northeast, Watertown, SD 57201 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 460016 Codington Unincorporated areas of Codington County (18-08-0263P) The Honorable Myron Johnson, Chairman, Codington County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 910, Watertown, SD 57201 Codington County Extension Complex-Zoning Office, 1910 West Kemp Avenue, Watertown, SD 57201 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 460260 Minnehaha City of Dell Rapids (17-08-1525P) The Honorable Tom Earley, Mayor, City of Dell Rapids, P.O. Box 10, Dell Rapids, SD 57022 City Hall, 302 East 4th Street, Dell Rapids, SD 57022 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 1, 2018 460059 Minnehaha Unincorporated areas of Minnehaha County (17-08-1525P) The Honorable Cindy Heiberger, Chair, Minnehaha County, Board of Commissioners, 415 North Dakota Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Minnehaha County Planning and Zoning Department, 415 North Dakota Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD 57104 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 1, 2018 460057 Texas: Bexar City of San Antonio (17-06-3172P) The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 480045 Bexar City of San Antonio (18-06-0004P) The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, P.O. Box 839966, San Antonio, TX 78283 Transportation and Capital Improvements Department, Storm Water Division, 1901 South Alamo Street, 2nd Floor, San Antonio, TX 78204 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 24, 2018 480045 Bexar Unincorporated areas of Bexar County (18-06-0004P) The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar County Judge, 101 West Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San Antonio, TX 78205 Bexar County Public Works Department, 233 North Pecos-La Trinidad Street, Suite 420, San Antonio, TX 78207 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 24, 2018 480035 Bexar Unincorporated areas of Bexar County (18-06-0285P) The Honorable Nelson W. Wolff, Bexar County Judge, 101 West Nueva Street, 10th Floor, San Antonio, TX 78205 Bexar County Public Works Department, 233 North Pecos-La Trinidad Street, Suite 420, San Antonio, TX 78207 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 17, 2018 480035 Collin City of Allen (18-06-0216P) The Honorable Stephen Terrell, Mayor, City of Allen, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 Engineering Department, 305 Century Parkway, Allen, TX 75013 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 21, 2018 480131 El Paso City of El Paso (17-06-3843P) Mr. Tommy Gonzalez, Manager, City of El Paso, 300 North Campbell Street, El Paso, TX 79901 City Hall, 801 Texas Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 24, 2018 480214 Harris City of Houston (17-06-3450P) The Honorable Sylvester Turner, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 Floodplain Management Department, 1002 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Houston, TX 77002 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 24, 2018 480296 Harris City of Hunter's Creek Village (17-06-3450P) The Honorable Jim Pappas, Mayor, City of Hunter's Creek Village, 1 Hunters Creek Place, Houston, TX 77024 City Hall, 1 Hunters Creek Place, Houston, TX 77024 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 24, 2018 480298 Hidalgo Unincorporated areas of Hidalgo County (18-06-0700P) The Honorable Ramon Garcia, Hidalgo County Judge, 100 East Cano Street, 2nd Floor, Edinburg, TX 78539 Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1, 902 North Doolittle Road, Edinburg, TX 78542 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Oct. 5, 2018 480334 Tarrant City of Fort Worth (17-06-4215P) The Honorable Betsy Price, Mayor, City of Fort Worth, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Transportation and Public Works Department, 200 Texas Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 16, 2018 480596 Tarrant City of Mansfield (17-06-4321P) The Honorable David L. Cook, Mayor, City of Mansfield, 1200 East Broad Street, Mansfield, TX 76063 City Hall, 1200 East Broad Street, Mansfield, TX 76063 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Aug. 16, 2018 480606 Virginia: Fauquier Unincorporated areas of Fauquier County (17-03-1930P) Mr. Paul S. McCulla, Fauquier County Administrator, 10 Hotel Street, Suite 204, Warrenton, VA 20186 Fauquier County Zoning and Development Services Department, 29 Ashby Street, 3rd Floor, Warrenton, VA 20186 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 20, 2018 510055 Loudoun Unincorporated areas of Loudoun County (18-03-0512P) Mr. Tim Hemstreet, Loudoun County Administrator, P.O. Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177 Loudoun County Department of Development, 1 Harrison Street Southeast, Leesburg, VA 20175 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 28, 2018 510090 Wyoming: Laramie City of Cheyenne (17-08-1565P) The Honorable Marian J. Orr, Mayor, City of Cheyenne, 2101 O'Neil Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001 Engineering Department, 2101 O'Neil Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 10, 2018 560030 Teton Town of Jackson (18-08-0346P) The Honorable Pete Muldoon, Mayor, Town of Jackson, P.O. Box 1687, Jackson, WY 83001 Public Works Department, 450 West Snow King Avenue, Jackson, WY 83001 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 13, 2018 560052 Teton Unincorporated areas of Teton County (18-08-0346P) The Honorable Mark Newcomb, Chairman, Teton County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 3594, Jackson, WY 83001 Teton County Public Works Department, 320 South King Street, Jackson, WY 83001 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch Sep. 13, 2018 560094
    [FR Doc. 2018-15213 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Agency Information Collection Activities: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; extension without change of a currently approved collection, 1601-0014.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. DHS previously published this ICR in the Federal Register on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 for a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received by DHS. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 16, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, DHS and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    This is an extension of a currently approved collection, 1601-0014. DHS previously published this ICR in the Federal Register on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 83 FR 14484 for a 60-day public comment period, and is soliciting public comment for another 30 days. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Analysis

    Agency: The Department of Homeland Security.

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Number: 1601-0014.

    Frequency: One per Request.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 215,100.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 minutes.

    Total Burden Hours: 34,732 Hours.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Melissa Bruce, Executive Director, Enterprise Business Management Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15170 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Agency Information Collection Activities: Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001, and Instructions) AGENCY:

    Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of a currently approved collection, 1601-0004.

    SUMMARY:

    The DHS Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) Ombudsman will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collected on this form will allow the CIS Ombudsman to identify the problem such as: (1) A case problem which is a request for information about a case that was filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (“case problem”); or (2) the identification of a systemic issue that may or may not pertain to an individual case which the individual, attorney or employer is seeking to bring to the attention of the CIS Ombudsman (“trend”). DHS previously published this information collection request (ICR) in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 for a 60-day public comment period. One comment was received by DHS. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 16, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to OMB Desk Officer, DHS and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CIS Ombudsman was created under section 452 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296) to: (1) Assist individuals and employers in resolving problems with the USCIS; (2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers have problems in dealing with USCIS; and (3) to the extent possible, propose changes in the administrative practices of USCIS to mitigate problems. This form is used by an applicant who is experiencing problems with USCIS during the processing of an immigration benefit.

    The information collected on this form will allow the CIS Ombudsman to identify the problem such as: (1) A case problem which is a request for information about a case that was filed with USCIS (“case problem”); or (2) the identification of a systemic issue that may or may not pertain to an individual case which the individual, attorney or employer is seeking to bring to the attention of the CIS Ombudsman (“trend”).

    For case problems, the CIS Ombudsman will refer case specific issues to the Customer Assistance Office for USCIS for further research, and review.

    For trends received, the CIS Ombudsman notes the systemic issue identified in the correspondence which may or may not be incorporated into future recommendations submitted to the Director of USCIS pursuant to section 452(d)(4) of Public Law 107-296.

    The use of this form provides the most efficient means for collecting and processing the required data. The CIS Ombudsman also employs the use of information technology in collecting and processing information by offering the option for electronic submission of the DHS Form 7001 through the Ombudsman Online Case Assistance System. Per PRA requirements, a fillable PDF version of the form is provided on the CIS Ombudsman's website. The PDF form can be completed online, printed out and sent to the CIS Ombudsman's office at the address indicated on the form. It is noted on the form that using the paper method can result in significant processing delays for the CIS Ombudsman's office to provide the requested case assistance. After approval of the changes to the form detailed in this supporting statement, both the online form and PDF will be updated and posted on the Ombudsman's website at http://www.dhs.gov/case-assistance for submission of the form.

    The assurance of confidentiality provided to the respondents for this information collection is provided by: (a) The CIS Ombudsman authorizing legislation and mandate as established by Homeland Security Act of 2002 at Section 452; (b) the Privacy Impact Assessment and the (c) Systems of Records Notice titled “Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman—001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 and Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System of Records”. The DHS Privacy Office will receive the entire package of documents for this information collection to assure authorization for renewal of the collection.

    The Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (PDF) and the Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System are constructed in compliance with all applicable DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, storage, and retrieval. The proposed public use data collection system is therefore intended to be distributed for public use primarily by electronic means with limited paper distribution and processing of paper forms.

    The Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (PDF) and the Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 (Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System) have been constructed in compliance with regulations and authorities under the purview of the DHS Privacy Office, DHS CIO, DHS Records Management, and OMB regulations regarding data collection, use, sharing, storage, information security and retrieval of information.

    There has been an increase of 3,200 in the estimated annual burden hours previously reported for this information collection. The increase in burden hours is a reflection of agency estimates.

    There is no change in the information being collected, however there have been cosmetic changes to the form including punctuation, formatting, and text changes to make the form more understandable and streamlined for use by respondents. In 2015, the following changes were made:

    a. Number of response fields was reduced from 13 to 12 and arranged in a way that streamlines completion, submission and processing of the form.

    b. The title of the form was changed from “Case Problem Submission Worksheet (CIS Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)” to “Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001)”.

    c. The name of the system was changed from “Virtual Ombudsman System” to “Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System”.

    The following narrative explains the changes made on the form in 2015 and the corresponding instructions. The ORIGINAL 7001 form had the sections arranged in the following order:

    1. Name: Please identify the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner).

    2. Contact Information: Please provide information on the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner).

    3. Date of Birth.

    4. Country of Birth and Citizenship.

    5. Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.

    6. Person Preparing This Form: Please indicate who is completing this form.

    7. Applications/Petitions Filed: List all applications and/or petitions pending with USCIS related to your case inquiry.

    8. Type of Immigration Benefit: Please provide the type of immigration benefit sought from USCIS.

    9. Reason for Inquiry: Please indicate if any of the options apply. Provide a description in section 10.

    10. Description: Describe the difficulties experienced with USCIS. Attach additional pages if needed.

    11. Prior Actions Taken: Check all that apply: Please describe the response USCIS provided and attach any relevant correspondence.

    12. Consent: If you are the beneficiary of an immigration petition, consent of the individual who submitted the petition on your behalf is required. The petitioner must sign.

    13. Attorney or Accredited Representative: Please complete this section if you are an attorney, a representative of an organization, an accredited representative, or anyone else preparing this form on behalf of the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS.

    The AMENDED 7001 form has the sections arranged in the following order:

    1. Name: Please identify the name of the individual or employer (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner) encountering or difficulties with USCIS. Do not enter the attorney/law firm's name here.

    2. Date of Birth: Country of Birth: Country of Citizenship.

    3. Alien Registration Number (A-Number); The A-number appears in the following format: A123-456-789.

    4. Contact Information: Please provide the contact information of the individual or employer (applicant/beneficiary/petitioner) encountering difficulties with USCIS. Please include the primary E-Mail address for the CIS Ombudsman to provide updates.

    5. Applications/Petitions Filed: List all applications and/or petitions pending with USCIS related to your case inquiry.

    6. Type of Immigration Benefit Sought: Please provide the type of immigration benefit sought from USCIS.

    7. Reason for Inquiry/Case Assistance Request: Check all that apply. Provide a description in section 8 and add documentation related to your inquiry.

    8. Description of your Case Problem: Describe the difficulties experienced with USCIS including all responses USCIS provided. Attach relevant correspondence concerning actions taken to resolve the issue before submitting with the Ombudsman's Office including: Receipt notices; requests for evidence; decisions; notices and any other correspondence from USCIS about your case. Attach additional pages if needed.

    9. Prior Actions Taken to Remedy the Problem:

    Check all that apply and provide the additional information requested for each selection in the space provided. Note that if selecting Option a “Visited USCIS My Case Status at www.uscis.gov”, you must indicate what additional actions (b through g) were taken to remedy the problem before submitting the form to the Ombudsman.

    a. Visited USCIS My Case Status at http://www.uscis.gov/.

    b. Contacted the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) for information and/or assistance regarding this case at their toll-free number 1-800-375-5283. Provide SRMT Number:

    c. Attended an InfoPass Appointment with USCIS. Provide InfoPass Number:

    d. Sent an Email to USCIS. Provide date E-Mail sent: Provide USCIS Email address:

    e. Contacted a U.S. Government Department or Agency for assistance. Provide name and contact information:

    f. Contacted a U.S. Congressional Representative for assistance. Provide name and contact information:

    g. Other. Please describe.

    10. Person Preparing This Form:

    Please indicate who is completing this form.

    11. Attorney or Accredited Representative:

    Please complete this section if you are an attorney, a representative of an organization, an accredited representative, or anyone else preparing this form on behalf of the individual or employer encountering difficulties with USCIS. Please attach copy of your Form G-28.

    12. Consent: Please note that if you are the beneficiary of an immigration petition, consent of the individual or employer that submitted the petition on your behalf is required. The petitioner must sign.

    The instructions have been updated to reflect the electronic submission options as detailed in the previous paragraphs.

    Instructions for electronic submission will be posted on the CIS Ombudsman website at www.dhs.gov/cisombudsman. The electronic version of the form was developed by DHS OCIO (Office of the Chief Information Officer) based upon the approved version of the amended 7001 form as described herein. Sample screenshots were provided with the 2015 submission.

    There is no change in the terms of clearance from the previously approved collection as addressed by the: (a) Privacy Impact Assessment and (b) Systems of Records Notice titled “Department of Homeland Security Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman—001 Online Ombudsman Form DHS-7001 and Ombudsman Case Assistance Online System of Records”.

    This is an extension of a currently approved collection, 1601-0004. DHS previously published this ICR in the Federal Register on Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 83 FR 17833 for a 60-day public comment period, and is soliciting public comment for another 30 days. OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Analysis

    Agency: Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, DHS.

    Title: Case Assistance Form (Ombudsman Form DHS-7001, and Instructions).

    OMB Number: 1601-0004.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Number of Respondents: 12,000.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hour.

    Total Burden Hours: 12,000.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. Melissa Bruce, Executive Director, Enterprise Business Management Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15172 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0104] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0104 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2010-0004. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov undere-Docket ID number USCIS-2010-0004;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2010-0004 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-918; Form I-918, Supplement A; Form I-918, Supplement B; Biometric Services; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Federal Government. This information collection permits victims of certain qualifying criminal activity and their immediate family to petition for temporary nonimmigrant status.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918 is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 5 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918, Supplement A is 25,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918, Supplement B is 36,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour. The estimated total number of respondents for the biometric services is 61,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 324,870 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $259,250.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15215 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Petition To Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household; Supplement 2, Consent To Disclose Information AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0028 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0020. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov undere-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0020;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0020 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household; Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-600, Form I-600A, Form I-600A Supplement 1, Form I-600A Supplement 2; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. A U.S. adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an immediate relative through Form I-600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA.A U.S. prospective adoptive parent may file Form I-600A in advance of the Form I-600 filing and USCIS will make a determination regarding the prospective adoptive parent's eligibility to file Form I-600A and their suitability and eligibility to properly parent an orphan. A U.S. adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an orphan as an immediate relative through Form I-600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA. If a U.S. prospective/adoptive parent has an adult member of his or her household, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301, the prospective/adoptive parent must include the Supplement 1 when filing both Form I-600A and Form I-600. The U.S. prospective/adoptive parent files Supplement 2 to authorize USCIS to disclose case-related information to adoption service providers that would otherwise be protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. Authorized disclosures will assist USCIS in the adjudication of Forms I-600A and I-600.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600 is 1,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600A is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600A Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600A Supplement 2 is 1,260 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the Home Study information collection is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the Biometrics information collection is 2,520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the Biometrics—DNA information collection is 2 and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 35,451 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $110,871,772.

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15214 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0141; FXES11140200000-189-FF02ENEH00] Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision on the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District Habitat Conservation Plan for Two Salamander Species in Travis and Hays Counties, Texas AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the National Environmental Policy Act, make available the final environmental impact statement and draft record of decision analyzing the impacts of issuance of an incidental take permit for implementation of the Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District (BSEACD) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Our decision is to issue a 20-year incidental take permit for implementation of the BSEACD HCP, which authorizes incidental take of two listed salamanders under the Endangered Species Act.

    DATES:

    We will finalize the record of decision and issue a permit no sooner than August 13, 2018.