Federal Register Vol. 83, No.139,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 139 (July 19, 2018)

Page Range34021-34468
FR Document

83_FR_139
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 34283 - Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of DirectorsPDF
83 FR 34114 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
83 FR 34164 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 34301 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
83 FR 34117 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34119 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery ProgramPDF
83 FR 34120 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34105 - National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement RatesPDF
83 FR 34108 - Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period July 1, 2018 Through June 30, 2019PDF
83 FR 34128 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active IngredientsPDF
83 FR 34101 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: (Consumer Research on the Safe Handling Instructions Label for Raw and Partially Cooked Meat and Poultry Products and Labeling Statements for Ready-to-Eat and Not-Ready-to-Eat Products)PDF
83 FR 34104 - Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Food Defense Vulnerability QuestionnairePDF
83 FR 34116 - Marine Mammals and Endangered SpeciesPDF
83 FR 34118 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21329PDF
83 FR 34111 - Soliciting Feedback From Users on 2020 Census Data ProductsPDF
83 FR 34126 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 34121 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34118 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34117 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34121 - Coral Reef Conservation ProgramPDF
83 FR 34120 - Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 34135 - Notice of Proposed Subaward Under a Council-Selected Restoration Component AwardPDF
83 FR 34144 - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationPDF
83 FR 34131 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
83 FR 34163 - Notice of Public Meeting, BLM Alaska Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 34162 - Notice of Public Meeting for the John Day-Snake Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 34156 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 34161 - Notice of Invitation to Participate; Coal Exploration License Application WYW186226, WyomingPDF
83 FR 34161 - Call for Nominations and Comments for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska 2018 Oil and Gas Lease SalePDF
83 FR 34046 - Safety Zone; Swim Event in Captain of the Port New York ZonePDF
83 FR 34041 - Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
83 FR 34092 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95 Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LAPDF
83 FR 34042 - Safety Zone; Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 34135 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
83 FR 34115 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited ReviewPDF
83 FR 34113 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
83 FR 34041 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, ORPDF
83 FR 34295 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ACQUA BLU; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 34296 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MONTRACHET; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 34296 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel VENOM; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
83 FR 34042 - Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, ILPDF
83 FR 34282 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 34132 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34164 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board MembershipPDF
83 FR 34133 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
83 FR 34094 - Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves-Extension of Public Comment PeriodPDF
83 FR 34283 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 34297 - Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Research and Development ForumPDF
83 FR 34281 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 34154 - Draft Long-Range Transportation Plans for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Regions 2, 6, and 8PDF
83 FR 34098 - Notice of Meeting: Board for International Food and Agricultural DevelopmentPDF
83 FR 34283 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety ImprovementsPDF
83 FR 34134 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
83 FR 34281 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Titian's Lady in White: A Renaissance Portrait Revealed” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 34112 - Corporation for Travel Promotion Board of DirectorsPDF
83 FR 34164 - Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board; MembersPDF
83 FR 34110 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 34300 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Renewal Without Change of Bank Secrecy Act Suspicious Activity Reporting Non-Bank Requirement for Residential Mortgage Lenders and OriginatorsPDF
83 FR 34298 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal; Comment Request; Renewal Without Change of Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Insurance Companies and Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and OriginatorsPDF
83 FR 34298 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Renewal Without Change of Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Requiring Money Services Businesses To Report Suspicious ActivityPDF
83 FR 34299 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Renewal Without Change of the Registration of Money Services Business, Regulation and FinCEN Form 107PDF
83 FR 34133 - Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances-Waiver of Certain Provisions of the FTR Chapter 302 for Official Relocation Travel to Locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricanes Irma and MariaPDF
83 FR 34150 - Maryland; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34150 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 34139 - E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34076 - Humic Product Trade Association; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use)PDF
83 FR 34139 - Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease ProductPDF
83 FR 34123 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 34141 - Labeling for Biosimilar Products; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34137 - Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34142 - Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34145 - Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 34153 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34147 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34150 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34146 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34165 - Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 34192 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34179 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34276 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34280 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34191 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34279 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34165 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34190 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34280 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34052 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
83 FR 34145 - Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34182 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, in Connection With a Proposed Transaction Involving CHX Holdings, Inc. and the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34277 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Discontinue the Router Basic Routing OptionPDF
83 FR 34227 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 34166 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Recovery and Wind-Down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 34193 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 34213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 34246 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Loss Allocation Rules and Make Other ChangesPDF
83 FR 34263 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Recovery & Wind-Down Plan and Related RulesPDF
83 FR 34155 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the Southern California Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa)PDF
83 FR 34281 - Atlantic and Western Railway, Limited Partnership-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-CSX Transportation, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34164 - Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal ProcedurePDF
83 FR 34144 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34143 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34144 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34163 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, India, Korea, and Taiwan; DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34022 - Special Conditions: Cranfield Aerospace Limited, Textron Aviation Inc. Model 525-Series Airplanes; Tamarack Load Alleviation System and Cranfield Winglets-Interaction of Systems and StructuresPDF
83 FR 34094 - Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
83 FR 34040 - Settlement Policy for Commercial Pilots in Drug and Alcohol Testing CasesPDF
83 FR 34302 - Solicitation of Nomination for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Women VeteransPDF
83 FR 34098 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Forest Inventory Analysis PilotPDF
83 FR 34050 - Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 9 Miscellaneous RulesPDF
83 FR 34127 - Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 34128 - Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 34021 - 504 Loan Program Rural Initiative-Waiver of Limitation on Lending AuthorityPDF
83 FR 34074 - Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 34072 - Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 34029 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus HelicoptersPDF
83 FR 34070 - Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 34076 - Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway WorkPDF
83 FR 34096 - FM Translator Interference: Media Bureau Grants Extension of Time To File Comments and Reply CommentsPDF
83 FR 34047 - Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program; CorrectionsPDF
83 FR 34053 - Public Transportation Safety Certification Training ProgramPDF
83 FR 34418 - Public Transportation Agency Safety PlanPDF
83 FR 34304 - Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals With Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) and Fee Schedule Amounts, and Technical Amendments To Correct Existing Regulations Related to the CBP for Certain DMEPOSPDF
83 FR 34122 - Notice Requesting Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES)PDF
83 FR 34031 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
83 FR 34034 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF

Issue

83 139 Thursday, July 19, 2018 Contents Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: Board for International Food and Agricultural Development, 34098 2018-15413 Agency Toxic Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34135-34137 2018-15437 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Users on 2020 Census Data Products, 34111-34112 2018-15458 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals with Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies Competitive Bidding Program and Fee Schedule Amounts, etc., 34304-34415 2018-14986 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Nevada State Advisory Committee, 34110-34111 2018-15406 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Willamette River at Portland, OR, 34041 2018-15434 Regulated Navigation Areas: Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL, 34042-34046 2018-15428 Safety Zones: Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK; Correction, 34042 2018-15438 Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 34041-34042 2018-15440 Swim Event in Captain of the Port New York Zone, 34046-34047 2018-15441 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95 Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA, 34092-34094 2018-15439 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Funding Availability: Conservation Reserve Program Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot, 34098-34100 2018-15349 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 34123-34126 2018-15392 Education Department Education Department RULES Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program; Corrections, 34047-34049 2018-15260 NOTICES Privacy Act; Matching Program, 34126-34127 2018-15457 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Michigan; Revisions to Part 9 Miscellaneous Rules, 34050-34051 2018-15339 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 34094-34096 2018-15353 NOTICES Pesticide Product Registrations; Applications: New Active Ingredients, 34128-34131 2018-15463 New Uses, 34131-34132 2018-15448 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34132-34133 2018-15422 2018-15424 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 34034-34039 2018-14687 Airbus Helicopters, 34029-34031 2018-15303 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 34031-34034 2018-14809 Settlement Policy for Commercial Pilots In Drug and Alcohol Testing Cases, 34040-34041 2018-15352 Special Conditions: Cranfield Aerospace Limited, Textron Aviation Inc. Model 525-Series Airplanes; Tamarack Load Alleviation System and Cranfield Winglets—Interaction of Systems and Structures, 34022-34028 2018-15354 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Helicopters, 34074-34076 2018-15305 Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, 34072-34074 2018-15304 Pratt and Whitney Division Turbofan Engines, 34070-34072 2018-15291 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES FM Translator Interference: Extension of Time to File Comments and Reply Comments, 34096-34097 2018-15275 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 34052-34053 2018-15372 NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 34147-34152 2018-15385 2018-15386 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 34146-34147, 34153-34154 2018-15384 2018-15387 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Maryland, 34150 2018-15397 Oklahoma, 34145 2018-15371 Major Disaster Declarations: Hawaii; Amendment No. 1, 34145, 34150 2018-15388 2018-15396 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Filings: Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, 34127-34128 2018-15323 2018-15324 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34282-34283 2018-15426 Federal Agency Actions: California; Proposed Highway, 34281-34283 2018-15417 2018-15419 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 34133 2018-15421 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 34283 2018-15603 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements, 34283-34295 2018-15412 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration RULES Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 34418-34468 2018-15167 Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, 34053-34069 2018-15168 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Insurance Companies and Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators, 34298-34299 2018-15401 Bank Secrecy Act Regulations Requiring Money Services Businesses to Report Suspicious Activity, 34298 2018-15400 Bank Secrecy Act Suspicious Activity Reporting Non-Bank Requirement for Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators, 34300-34301 2018-15402 Registration of Money Services Business, Regulation and FinCEN Form, 34299-34300 2018-15399 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Draft Long-Range Transportation Plans for Lands in Regions 2, 6, and 8, 34154-34155 2018-15415 Endangered and Threatened Species: Draft Recovery Plan for the Southern California Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, 34155-34156 2018-15362 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Food Additive Petitions (Animal Use): Humic Product Trade Assn.; Withdrawal, 34076 2018-15394 NOTICES Guidance: E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials; International Council for Harmonisation, 34139-34140 2018-15395 Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers, 34142-34143 2018-15389 Labeling for Biosimilar Products, 34141-34142 2018-15391 Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations, 34137-34138 2018-15390 Priority Review Vouchers: Rare Pediatric Disease Product, 34139 2018-15393 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, 34108-34110 2018-15464 National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates, 34105-34108 2018-15465 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consumer Research on the Safe Handling Instructions Label for Raw and Partially Cooked Meat and Poultry Products and Labeling Statements for Ready-to-Eat and Not-Ready-to-Eat Products, 34101-34103 2018-15462 Food Defense Vulnerability Questionnaire, 34104-34105 2018-15461 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 34301-34302 2018-15470 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Federal Travel Regulations: Relocation Allowances—Waiver of Certain Provisions of the FTR Chapter 302 for Official Relocation Travel to Locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, 34133-34134 2018-15398 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 34134-34135 2018-15411 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Proposed Subaward under a Council-Selected Restoration Component Award, 34135 2018-15451 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 34156-34161 2018-15445
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the People's Republic of China, 34115-34116 2018-15436 Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey, 34113-34114 2018-15435 Corporation for Travel Promotion Board of Directors, 34112-34113 2018-15408 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates, 34114-34115 2018-15566 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, 34163-34164 2018-15356 Judicial Conference Judicial Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, 34164 2018-15360 Justice Department Justice Department See

Parole Commission

Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES License Applications: Coal Exploration; WYW186226, Wyoming; Invitation to Participate, 34161-34162 2018-15444 Meetings: Alaska Resource Advisory Council, 34163 2018-15447 John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council, 34162-34163 2018-15446 Requests for Nominations: National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska 2018 Oil and Gas Lease Sale, 34161 2018-15442 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Membership, 34164 2018-15423 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel ACQUA BLU, 34295-34296 2018-15432 Vessel MONTRACHET, 34296-34297 2018-15431 Vessel VENOM, 34296 2018-15430 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Members, 34164-34165 2018-15407 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee, 34165 2018-15383 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 34144 2018-15357 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 34144 2018-15359 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 34143-34144 2018-15358 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery Program, 34119-34120 2018-15468 Meetings: Coral Reef Conservation Program, 34121 2018-15453 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 34117-34118, 34120-34121 2018-15467 2018-15469 New England Fishery Management Council, 34117 2018-15454 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 34118-34119 2018-15455 Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council, 34120 2018-15452 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 34121-34122 2018-15456 Permits: Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, 34116 2018-15460 Marine Mammals; File No. 21329, 34118 2018-15459 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing, 34122-34123 2018-14970 National Park National Park Service PROPOSED RULES Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves, 34094 2018-15420 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work, 34076-34092 2018-15285 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 34164 2018-15540 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pipeline Research and Development Forum, 34297-34298 2018-15418 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34165, 34179-34182, 34190-34192, 34276-34277, 34279-34281 2018-15373 2018-15374 2018-15375 2018-15376 2018-15377 2018-15378 2018-15379 2018-15380 2018-15381 2018-15382 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 34182-34190 2018-15370 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 34193-34227 2018-15365 2018-15366 Investors Exchange, LLC, 34277-34279 2018-15369 National Securities Clearing Corp., 34166-34179, 34227-34245 2018-15367 2018-15368 The Depository Trust Co., 34246-34276 2018-15363 2018-15364 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES 504 Loan Program Rural Initiative: Waiver of Limitation on Lending Authority, 34021-34022 2018-15312 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Determinations: Titian's Lady in White: A Renaissance Portrait Revealed Exhibition, 34281 2018-15409 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 34144-34145 2018-15450 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition and Operation Exemptions: Atlantic and Western Railway, LP; CSX Transportation, Inc., 34281 2018-15361 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, 34302 2018-15350 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 34304-34415 2018-14986 Part III Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, 34418-34468 2018-15167 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.

83 139 Thursday, July 19, 2018 Rules and Regulations SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 120 504 Loan Program Rural Initiative—Waiver of Limitation on Lending Authority AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION:

Notification of 504 Loan Program Rural Initiative Pilot Program and impact on regulatory provisions.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the 504 Loan Program Rural Initiative Pilot Program (504 Rural Pilot), as described in this document, and its impact on Agency regulations. The 504 Rural Pilot waives the restrictions on the authority of Certified Development Companies (CDCs) to make 504 loans outside their Area of Operations to allow each CDC to make loans for 504 Projects with an address located in any rural county if the 504 Project is located in the same SBA Region in which the CDC is incorporated. This pilot will provide rural small businesses with increased opportunities to access capital and will further the statutory public policy goal of the 504 Loan Program to achieve rural development impact.

DATES:

The 504 Rural Pilot, including the waiver of the restrictions in 13 CFR 120.839 on CDCs' authority to make loans outside their Area of Operations, will be available from July 19, 2018, through July 20, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Reilly, Chief, 504 Program Branch, Office of Financial Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; Telephone (202) 205-9949; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 504 Loan Program is a financing tool authorized under title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (SBIAct) to provide small businesses with long-term, fixed-rate financing to help acquire major fixed assets for expansion or modernization. A Certified Development Company (CDC) is typically a private, nonprofit corporation set up to contribute to the economic development of its community. CDCs work with SBA and private sector lenders to provide financing to small businesses under the 504 Loan Program. In general, a 504 project includes: A loan obtained from a private sector lender with a senior lien covering at least 50 percent of the project cost; a loan obtained from a CDC with a junior lien covering up to 40 percent of the project cost (backed by a 100 percent SBA-guaranteed debenture); and a contribution from the Borrower of at least 10 percent of the project cost.

Under 13 CFR 120.821, a CDC is required to operate only within its designated Area of Operations approved by SBA, except as provided in 13 CFR 120.839. Each CDC's approved Area of Operations includes the entire State in which it is incorporated (see 13 CFR 120.810(b)). A CDC also may apply and be approved to expand its Area of Operations into a Local Economic Area under 13 CFR 120.835(b) or by becoming a Multi-State CDC under 13 CFR 120.835(c). Under 13 CFR 120.839, a CDC may submit a request to the Sacramento Loan Processing Center (SLPC) to make a 504 loan for a 504 Project outside its Area of Operations. In such case, the CDC must demonstrate that it can adequately fulfill its 504 program responsibilities for the 504 loan, including proper servicing, and have satisfactory SBA performance, as determined by SBA in its discretion. The SLPC may approve the application if, in addition to other requirements, (1) the CDC has previously assisted the business to obtain a 504 loan, (2) the existing CDC or CDCs serving the area agree to permit the applicant CDC to make the 504 loan, or (3) there is no CDC within the Area of Operations in which the 504 Project is located.

One of the statutory public policy goals of the 504 Loan Program is to achieve rural development. See section 501(d)(3)(D) of the SBIAct. Since 2013, a significant number of rural CDCs have voluntarily decertified, while SBA has approved only two new rural CDCs. SBA has historically found that increasing the CDC operating service area results in more 504 loan activity. However, in accordance with 13 CFR 120.835, CDCs are only permitted to expand their Area of Operations by requesting Local Economic Area expansion or Multi-State authority. This authority limits CDC expansion to areas and States contiguous to a CDC's Area of Operations.

In order to address this issue and increase lending in rural areas, SBA has developed the 504 Rural Pilot. This Pilot allows CDCs to make loans for 504 Projects with an address located in any county classified as “rural” by the U.S. Census Bureau if the 504 Project is located in the same SBA Region in which the CDC is incorporated. SBA expects that the expansion of a CDC's authority to process rural loans anywhere within their SBA-defined Region will result in increased lending and economic growth in rural markets.

Specifically, for purposes of the 504 Rural Pilot, SBA is waiving the following requirements in 13 CFR 120.839 (i.e., these requirements will not apply to 504 Rural Pilot loans):

(1) The CDC must apply to the Sacramento Loan Processing Center in order to make the 504 loan for the 504 Project outside of its Area of Operation;

(2) The CDC must demonstrate that it can adequately fulfill its 504 program responsibilities for the 504 loan;

(3) SBA must determine that the CDC has satisfactory SBA performance; and

(4) The CDC must have previously assisted the business to obtain a 504 loan, the existing CDC or CDCs serving the area agree to permit the outside CDC to make the 504 loan, or there is no CDC within the Area of Operations in which the 504 Project is located.

Under the 504 Rural Pilot, a CDC may make a 504 loan for a 504 Project located outside the CDC's Area of Operations only if the 504 Project address is located in a rural county that is in the same SBA Region in which the CDC is incorporated. For purposes of the 504 Rural Pilot, rural counties are those counties classified as “mostly rural” or “completely rural” by the U.S. Census Bureau in its most recent decennial census report, and are identified in the County Classification Lookup Table that can be downloaded at www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba-initiatives/sba-rural-lending-initiative or on the Welcome Screen for the Capital Access Financial System (CAFS). (CDCs must use the U.S. Census Bureau table for purposes of identifying rural counties for the 504 Rural Pilot, which may not be the same as the rural areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.) SBA Regions are defined as follows:

• Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont • Region II: New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and The U.S. Virgin Islands • Region III: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia • Region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee • Region V: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin • Region VI: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas • Region VII: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska • Region VIII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming • Region IX: Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada • Region X: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

In making, closing, servicing, or liquidating a 504 Rural Pilot loan, CDCs must follow all other Loan Program Requirements under the 504 Loan Program, except that 504 Rural Pilot loans cannot be made using the CDC's delegated authority (i.e., PCLP or ALP authority). Although, as described above, CDCs will not be required “to demonstrate” that they can adequately fulfill their 504 program responsibilities for each 504 Rural Pilot loan before making the loan, CDCs will still be expected to fulfill all such program responsibilities with respect to these loans.

Unlike a Multi-State CDC, a CDC making a loan under this pilot will not be required to establish a separate loan committee to cover the State in which the rural 504 Project is located. In addition, the CDC must advise the local District Counsel where the 504 Project is located which Designated Attorney, or other attorney, will be closing the loan. (The attorney must be licensed in the State where the loan is being made.) CDCs should note that the CDC may not close the loan as an expedited loan unless the attorney is a Designated Attorney licensed to practice in the State where the 504 Project is located. The CDC is responsible for notifying the SLPC that a 504 loan application is being submitted under the 504 Rural Pilot.

SBA's waiver of the above requirements is authorized by 13 CFR 120.3 of its regulations, which provides that the SBA Administrator may suspend, modify or waive rules for a limited period of time to test new programs or ideas. The 504 Rural Pilot will be available for a two year period beginning today.

SBA will limit the number of loans made under the 504 Rural Pilot to not more than ten percent of the total number of 504 loans guaranteed by SBA in any fiscal year. While SBA does not expect the number of 504 Rural Pilot loans to reach that limit, SBA will provide public notice of the need to suspend lending under the 504 Rural Pilot for the remainder of the fiscal year if SBA determines that the number of pilot loans is approaching the limit.

SBA will be using the following criteria to evaluate the 504 Rural Pilot to determine how well it is achieving its objectives and other aspects of performance: (1) The measurable objectives to be achieved through the 504 Rural Pilot, including the number of small business concerns served, and the delinquency and default rates on the 504 Rural Pilot loans compared to regular 504 loans; (2) the number of CDCs that participate in the 504 Rural Pilot and their performance in making and servicing 504 Rural Pilot loans; and (3) the costs and standards of performance which, in order to be acceptable, must not impact the overall subsidy rate for the 504 Loan Program. For data collections to evaluate the effectiveness of this pilot, SBA will use ETran, SBA's electronic system for loan submission and servicing.

Authority:

13 CFR 120.3.

Dated: July 6, 2018. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-15312 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9409; Special Conditions No. 23-279A-SC] Special Conditions: Cranfield Aerospace Limited, Textron Aviation Inc. Model 525-Series Airplanes; Tamarack Load Alleviation System and Cranfield Winglets—Interaction of Systems and Structures AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Amended final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These amended special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. Model 525-series airplanes. These airplanes—as modified by Cranfield Aerospace Limited—will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of a Tamarack Active Technology Load Alleviation System and Cranfield Winglets. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These amended special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards, change the Type Certificate holder, and remove the special flight permit requirement.

DATES:

These special conditions are effective July 19, 2018 and are applicable on July 10, 2018.

We must receive your comments by September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9409 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery of Courier: Deliver comments to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: You can read the background documents or comments received at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room @12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Reyer, Continued Operational Safety, ACE-113, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4131; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

These special conditions have been subjected to the notice and comment period previously and this amendment is without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and finds good cause exists for adopting these amended special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments.

We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On January 25, 2016, Cranfield Aerospace Limited (CAL) applied for a supplemental type certificate to install winglets on the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 525, with a Tamarack Active Technology Load Alleviation System to mitigate the winglet's adverse structural effects. The Textron Model 525 twin-turbofan engine airplane is certified in the normal category for eight seats, including a pilot, a maximum gross weight of 10,700 pounds, and a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet mean sea level. Because the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature, the FAA issued special conditions to provide an equivalent level of safety. After notice and opportunity for comment (81 FR 83737, November 22, 2016), Special Conditions No. 23-279-SC published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2017 (82 FR 1163).

These special conditions address several issues with the operation and failure of the load-relief system. Special Conditions No. 23-279-SC, paragraph 2(h), Further flights with known load-relief system failure, required a special flight permit (“ferry permit”) for additional flights after an annunciated failure or obvious system failure.

On February 15, 2018, CAL requested the FAA amend Special Condition No. 23-279-SC to remove the paragraph 2(h) and replace it with flight limitations used by the European Aviation Safety Agency. In the event of a load-relief system failure, these flight limitations allow the airplane to be moved to an appropriate maintenance facility without the need for a special flight permit.

The FAA will amend the special conditions to remove the special flight permit requirements, but finds no need to include any additional requirement regarding flights with known load relief system failure in these special conditions. Current regulatory requirements address this condition. Inoperative equipment requirements are contained in 14 CFR part 91. Section 91.213, Inoperative instruments and equipment, prohibits taking off in an aircraft with inoperative instruments or equipment unless there is an FAA-approved Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for the specific aircraft type. Without an FAA-approved MEL, operators must obtain a special flight permit in accordance with §§ 21.197, Special flight permits, and 21.199, Issue of special flight permits. Additional operational restrictions are not necessary for these special conditions.

On July 29, 2015, Cessna Aircraft Company transferred Type Certificate No. A1WI to Textron. As a result, these proposed amended special conditions reflect the current type certificate holder. In addition, these special conditions were intended to apply to all Model 525 airplanes on Type Certificate No. A1WI, and we have clarified that in this amendment.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Cranfield Aerospace Limited must show that the Textron Model 525-series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A1WI, revision 26, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A1WI, revision 26, are 14 CFR part 23 effective February 1, 1965, amendments 23-1 through 23-38 and 23-40.

If the Administrator finds the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Textron Model 525-series because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Textron Model 525-series must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Textron Model 525-series will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

Cranfield winglets with a Tamarack Active Technology Load Alleviation System. Discussion

For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the applicant must take into account the influence of these systems and their failure conditions when showing compliance with the requirements of part 23, subparts Cand D.

The applicant must use the following criteria for showing compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management systems, and other systems that either directly or as a result of failure or malfunction affect structural performance. If these special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the criteria to the specific system.

Discussion of Comments

Notice of proposed Special Conditions No. 23-16-03-SC for the Cessna Model 525 airplane was published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2016 (81 FR 83737). No comments were received, and the special conditions were adopted—as proposed—in Special Condition No. 23-279-SC (82 FR 1163, January 5, 2017). Accordingly, these amended special conditions are being issued as final special conditions.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 525-series airplanes. Should Cranfield Aerospace Limited apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on A1WI, revision 26, to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 14 CFR 21.16, 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Aviation Inc. Model 525-series airplanes modified by Cranfield Aerospace Limited.

1. Active Technology Load Alleviation System (ATLAS) SC 23.672 Load Alleviation System

The load alleviation system must comply with the following:

(a) A warning, which is clearly distinguishable to the pilot under expected flight conditions without requiring the pilot's attention, must be provided for any failure in the load alleviation system or in any other automatic system that could result in an unsafe condition if the pilot was not aware of the failure. Warning systems must not activate the control system.

(b) The design of the load alleviation system or of any other automatic system must permit initial counteraction of failures without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, by either the deactivation of the system or a failed portion thereof, or by overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls in the normal sense.

(1) If deactivation of the system is used to counteract failures, the control for this initial counteraction must be readily accessible to each pilot while operating the control wheel and thrust control levers.

(2) If overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls is used, the override capability must be operationally demonstrated.

(c) It must be shown that, after any single failure of the load alleviation system, the airplane must be safely controllable when the failure or malfunction occurs at any speed or altitude within the approved operating limitations that is critical for the type of failure being considered;

(d) It must be shown that, while the system is active or after any single failure of the load alleviation system—

(1) The controllability and maneuverability requirements of part 23, subpart D, are met within a practical operational flight envelope (e.g., speed, altitude, normal acceleration, and airplane configuration) that is described in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM); and

(2) The trim, stability, and stall characteristics are not impaired below a level needed to permit continued safe flight and landing.

SC 23.677 Load Alleviation Active Control Surface

(a) Proper precautions must be taken to prevent inadvertent or improper operation of the load alleviation system. It must be demonstrated that with the load alleviation system operating throughout its operational range, a pilot of average strength and skill level is able to continue safe flight with no objectionable increased workload.

(b) The load alleviation system must be designed so that, when any one connecting or transmitting element in the primary flight control system fails, adequate control for safe flight and landing is available.

(c) The load alleviation system must be irreversible unless the control surface is properly balanced and has no unsafe flutter characteristics. The system must have adequate rigidity and reliability in the portion of the system from the control surface to the attachment of the irreversible unit to the airplane structure.

(d) It must be demonstrated the airplane is safely controllable and a pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to affect a safe landing following any load alleviation system runaway not shown to be extremely improbable, allowing for appropriate time delay after pilot recognition of the system runaway. The demonstration must be conducted at critical airplane weights and center of gravity positions.

SC 23.683 Operation Tests

(a) It must be shown by operation tests that, when the flight control system and the load alleviation systems are operated and loaded as prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, the flight control system and load alleviation systems are free from—

(1) Jamming;

(2) Excessive friction; and

(3) Excessive deflection.

(b) The operation tests in paragraph (a) of this section must also show the load alleviation system and associated surfaces do not restrict or prevent aileron control surface movements, or cause any adverse response of the ailerons, under the loading prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section that would prevent continued safe flight and landing.

(c) The prescribed test loads are for the entire load alleviation and flight control systems, loads corresponding to the limit air loads on the appropriate surfaces.

Note: Advisory Circular (AC) 23-17C, “Systems and Equipment Guide to Certification of Part 23 Airplanes,” provides guidance on potential methods of compliance with this section and other regulations applicable to this STC project.

SC 23.685 Control System Details

(a) Each detail of the load alleviation system and related moveable surfaces must be designed and installed to prevent jamming, chafing, and interference from cargo, passengers, loose objects, or the freezing of moisture.

(b) There must be means in the cockpit to prevent the entry of foreign objects into places where they would jam any one connecting or transmitting element of the load alleviation system.

(c) Each element of the load alleviation system must have design features, or must be distinctively and permanently marked, to minimize the possibility of incorrect assembly that could result in malfunctioning of the control system.

SC 23.697 Load Alleviation System Controls

(a) The load alleviation control surface must be designed so that during normal operation, when the surface has been placed in any position, it will not move from that position unless the control is adjusted or is moved by the operation of a load alleviation system.

(b) The rate of movement of the control surface in response to the load alleviation system controls must give satisfactory flight and performance characteristics under steady or changing conditions of airspeed, engine power, attitude, flap configuration, speedbrake position, and during landing gear extension and retraction.

SC 23.701 Load Alleviation System Interconnection

(a) The load alleviation system and related movable surfaces as a system must—

(1) Be synchronized by a mechanical interconnection between the movable surfaces or by an approved equivalent means; or

(2) Be designed so the occurrence of any failure of the system that would result in an unsafe flight characteristic of the airplane is extremely improbable; or

(b) The airplane must be shown to have safe flight characteristics with any combination of extreme positions of individual movable surfaces.

(c) If an interconnection is used in multiengine airplanes, it must be designed to account for unsymmetrical loads resulting from flight with the engines on one side of the plane of symmetry inoperative and the remaining engines at takeoff power. For single-engine airplanes, and multiengine airplanes with no slipstream effects on the load alleviation system, it may be assumed that 100 percent of the critical air load acts on one side and 70 percent on the other.

Sections 23.675, “Stops;” 23.681, “Limit Load Static Tests;” and 23.693, “Joints”

The load alleviation system must comply with §§ 23.675, 23.681, and 23.693 as written and no unique special condition will be required for these regulations.

Applicability of Control System Regulations to Other Control Systems

If applicable, other control systems used on the Textron Model 525-series may require a showing of compliance with §§ 23.672, 23.675, 23.677, 23.681, 23.683, 23.685, 23.693, 23.697, and 23.701 as written for this STC project.

2. Interaction of Systems and Structures

(a) The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may in some instances duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided in this special condition.

(b) Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane, additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided in this special condition in order to demonstrate the capability of the airplane to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load alleviation system.

(c) The following definitions are applicable to this special condition.

(1) Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the structural requirements of 14 CFR part 23.

(2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations, avoidance of severe weather conditions, etc.).

(3) Reserved.

(4) Probabilistic terms: The probabilistic terms (probable, improbable, extremely improbable) used in this special condition are the same as those used in § 23.1309. For the purposes of this special condition, extremely improbable for normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes is defined as 10 8 per hour. For commuter category airplanes, extremely improbable is defined as 10 9 per hour.

(5) Failure condition: The term failure condition is the same as that used in § 23.1309, however this special condition applies only to system failure conditions that affect the structural performance of the airplane (e.g., system failure conditions that induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins).

(d) General. The following criteria (paragraphs (e) through (i)) will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane structure.

(e) System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the following apply:

(1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds or any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.

(2) The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 23 (static strength and residual strength for failsafe or damage tolerant structure), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.

(3) The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of § 23.629.

(f) System in the failure condition. For any system failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:

(1) At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions, must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of failure and immediately after failure.

(i) For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for design. The factor of safety is defined in figure 1.

ER19JY18.005

(ii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in subparagraph (f)(1)(i).

(iii) For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.

(iv) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the speeds defined in § 23.629(f). For failure conditions that result in speeds beyond VD/MD, freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins intended by § 23.629(f) are maintained.

(v) Failures of the system that result in forced structural vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.

(2) For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane, in the system failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:

(i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC, or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight, must be determined:

(A) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 23.321, 23.331, 23.333, 23.345, 23.421, 23.423, and 23.445.

(B) The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in §§ 23.341, 23.345, 23.425, 23.443, and 23.445.

(C) The limit rolling conditions specified in § 23.349 and the limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in §§ 23.347, 23.427, and 23.445.

(D) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in §§ 23.351, 23.441, and 23.445.

(E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in §§ 23.473 and 23.493.

(ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this special condition multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in figure 2.

ER19JY18.006

(iii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this special condition. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the normal operating pressure differential.

(iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance then their effects must be taken into account.

(v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed determined from figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V′ and V″ may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by § 23.629.

ER19JY18.007

(vi) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to V′ in figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by §§ 23.571 through 23.574.

(3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by other sections of 14 CFR part 23 regardless of calculated system reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be less than 10−8 for normal, utility, or acrobatic category airplanes or less than 10−9 for commuter category airplanes, criteria other than those specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued safe flight and landing.

(g) Failure indications. For system failure detection and indication, the following apply:

(1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level required by part 23 or significantly reduce the reliability of the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems to achieve the objective of this requirement. These certification maintenance requirements must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal detection and indication systems and where service history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.

(2) The existence of any failure condition, not extremely improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. The probability of not annunciating these failure conditions must be extremely improbable (unannunciated failure). For example, failure conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V″, must be signaled to the flightcrew during flight.

(h) Fatigue and damage tolerance. If any system failure would have a significant effect on the fatigue or damage evaluations required in §§ 23.571 through 23.574, then these effects must be taken into account.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 10, 2018. Pat Mullen, Manager, Small Airplane Standard Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-15354 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0091; Product Identifier 2017-SW-054-AD; Amendment 39-19334; AD 2018-15-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the tail rotor (TR) pitch rod. This AD is prompted by a report of several cases of damaged TR pitch rod ball joints. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 3, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address 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-2018-0091; 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 AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2017-0020-E, dated February 7, 2017, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N and AS 355 NP helicopters with modification (MOD) 075601 or MOD 076602 installed. EASA advises of several reports of damaged horn-side TR pitch rod elastomeric ball joints, and of an on-going investigation to determine the cause of the damage. EASA states that this condition could result in loss of control of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the TR pitch rod. While the inspections are contained in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the helicopter maintenance manual, the EASA AD reduces the interval from 50 flight hours to 10 flight hours.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.86 for Model AS350-series helicopters and EASB No. 05.00.75 for Model AS355-series helicopters, both Revision 1 and both dated February 6, 2017. This service information contains procedures for inspecting the TR pitch change rod elastomeric ball joint for damage.

AD Requirements

This AD requires, for helicopters with a TR pitch change rod elastomeric ball joint installed, within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS, inspecting each face of the TR pitch rod blade side ball joint for debonding, extrusion, and a crack. If there is debonding, extrusion, or a crack with a circumference of 90 degrees or more, this AD requires replacing the TR pitch rod before further flight. Airbus Helicopters identifies the installation of a TR pitch change rod elastomeric ball joint as MOD 075601 or MOD 076602.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

The EASA AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350 BB helicopters. This AD does not as that model is not type-certificated in the U.S.

Interim Action

We consider this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 896 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the TR pitch rod ball joint requires 0.5 hour, for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $38,528 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing a TR pitch rod requires one work-hour and required parts cost $3,174, for a cost per helicopter of $3,259.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the inspections required by this AD must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS and thereafter every 10 hours TIS. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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.

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-15-02 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-19334; Docket No. FAA-2018-0091; Product Identifier 2017-SW-054-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, certificated in any category, with a tail rotor (TR) pitch change rod elastomeric ball joint installed.

Note 1 to paragraph (a): Airbus Helicopters modification (MOD) 075601 and MOD 076602 consist of replacing the TR pitch change rod with an elastomeric ball joint rod.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a damaged elastomeric ball joint on the TR pitch change rod. This condition could result in failure of the TR pitch change rod and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 3, 2018.

(d) Compliance

You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS:

(1) Manually induce a flapping movement in the TR blade until the pitch change rod rotates a minimum of 10 degrees.

(2) Inspect both faces of the blade side of the ball joint elastomer for debonding, extrusion, and cracks. If there is a crack or any debonding or extrusion with a circumference of 90 or more degrees, before further flight, replace the pitch change rod.

(f) Special Flight Permits

Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 05.00.86 and EASB No. 05.00.75, both Revision 1 and both dated February 6, 2017, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.helicopters.airbus.com/website/en/ref/Technical-Support_73.html. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2017-0020-E, dated February 7, 2017. You may view the EASA Emergency AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2018-0091.

(i) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720 Tail Rotor Control System.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 6, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-15303 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD; Amendment 39-19331; AD 2018-14-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 23, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0166.

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-2018-0166; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The 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:

Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12508). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2017-0223R1, dated December 15, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The airworthiness limitations and certification maintenance requirements (CMR) for ATR aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A Time Limits (TL) document. These instructions have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness.

Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

Consequently, ATR published Revision 15 of the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A TL document, which contains new and/or more restrictive CMRs and airworthiness limitation tasks.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the ATR72-101/-201/-102/-202/-211/-212/-212A TL document Revision 15, hereafter referred to as `the TLD' in this [EASA] AD.

This [EASA] AD, in conjunction with two other [EASA] ADs related to ATR42-200/-300/-320 (EASA AD 2017-0221) and ATR42-400/-500 (EASA AD 2017-0222) aeroplanes, retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0241 and EASA AD 2012-0193. Once all these three ADs are effective, EASA will cancel EASA AD 2009-0242 and EASA AD 2012-0193.

This [EASA] AD is revised to provide the correct issue date (02 May 2017) of the TLD. The original [EASA] AD inadvertently referenced the EASA approval date for that document.

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations. The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. 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-2018-0166.

Comment

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Request To Correct Typographical Error

Empire Airlines asked that airworthiness limitations (AWL) task number 572401-1, identified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, be changed to AWL task number 572402-1. Empire Airlines stated that AWL task number 572401-1 corresponds to maintenance review board report (MRBR) task numbers ZL-500-01-1 and ZL-600-01-1; and the MRBR task numbers ZL-520-01-1 and ZL-620-01-1, identified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, correspond with AWL task number 572402-1. Empire Airlines provided substantiation data to this effect.

We agree with the commenter that a typographical error was made in the AWL task number 572401-1, identified in table 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD. We have corrected this error accordingly.

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 airworthiness limitations section (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 revisions, 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 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.

To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the 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 AD therefore applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this 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.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the change described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional has issued the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017. This service information describes preventive maintenance requirements and includes updated limitations, tasks, thresholds 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.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-14-11 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Amendment 39-19331; Docket No. FAA-2018-0166; Product Identifier 2017-NM-169-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD affects AD 2000-23-26, Amendment 39-11999 (65 FR 70775, November 28, 2000) (“AD 2000-23-26”); and AD 2008-04-19 R1, Amendment 39-16069 (74 FR 56713, November 3, 2009) (“AD 2008-04-19 R1”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before May 2, 2017.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) 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 limitations and tasks at the applicable thresholds and intervals specified in the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the tasks specified in the ALS of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017, is at the applicable time specified in the ALS, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, except for the tasks identified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Initial Compliance Times for Certain Tasks

For accomplishing airworthiness limitations (AWL) and certification maintenance requirement (CMR)/maintenance significant item (MSI) tasks identified in table 1 and table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, the initial compliance time is at the applicable time specified in the ALS of the ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017, or at the applicable compliance time in table 1 or table 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later.

ER19JY18.004 ER19JY18.008 (i) No Alternative Actions, and Intervals

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

(j) Terminating Action

Accomplishing paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2000-23-26 and AD 2008-04-19 R1.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(l) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0223R1, dated December 15, 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-2018-0166.

(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3220.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) ATR72 Time Limits document, Revision 15, dated May 2, 2017.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]

(4) 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.

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

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 3, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-14809 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1093; Product Identifier 2017-NM-018-AD; Amendment 39-19329; AD 2018-14-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of early cracking on certain holes of the crossbeam splicing at certain fuselage frames. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in certain fuselage frames, and depending on airplane configuration, provides an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 23, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, 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 referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1093.

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-2017-1093; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2017 (82 FR 55955) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of early cracking on certain holes of the crossbeam splicing at certain fuselage frames. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in certain fuselage frames, and depending on airplane configuration, would provide an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address cracking at two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at frame (FR)16 and FR20, on both the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, which can result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane due to the failure of structural components.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0139, dated July 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The MCAI states:

Following addition of a new airworthiness limitation item (ALI) task 531110 in the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) Part 2 in the revision dated April 2012, numerous findings have been reported of early cracks on the four holes of the crossbeam splicing at frame (FR)16 and FR20 on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

To allow an earlier crack detection, Airbus decided to transfer the repetitive inspections from ALI task 531110 to Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1286, later revised, including new recommended inspection thresholds.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive special detailed [rototest] inspections (SDI) of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20, on both LH and RH sides, [installation of new fasteners on crack-free frames, related investigative and corrective actions,] and, depending on aeroplane configuration, provides an optional terminating action to the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

Related investigative actions include checking the edge margins of the holes. Corrective actions include reaming affected crossbeams and frames and cold working the frames. 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-2017-1093.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Revise Repair Instructions for Repairs Done Using an Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS)

American Airlines (AAL) and United Airlines (UAL) requested that the repair instructions in paragraph (l) of the proposed AD be revised to remove requirements to obtain new repair instructions for any airplanes on which repairs were done using the instructions in an Airbus RDAS. AAL noted that the original RDAS approval was given by an EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), so new approval should not be needed. Instead, AAL suggested that the issuer of the RDASs should be required to revise the RDASs as necessary. UAL noted that an RDAS already defines repair life and inspection instructions or limits. UAL also noted that the MCAI does not require obtaining new repair instructions, but instead says to accomplish the repair instructions given in the RDAS for repaired fastener holes.

We disagree to require the issuer of the RDAS to revise the RDAS. An RDAS is an Airbus document that is not approved by the FAA, and the FAA has no authority to require Airbus to revise the RDAS.

We agree with the requests to remove the requirement to obtain repair instructions in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have confirmed that EASA intended the corresponding paragraph in the MCAI to be informational, rather than a new requirement. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD to note that the information on the next inspection and compliance time for the inspection of repaired holes is specified in the applicable RDAS; therefore, there is no requirement to obtain and follow new instructions.

Request To Supersede Certain Inspections

UAL requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to state that previous repair instructions that superseded ALI 531110 also terminate the inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD for the repaired holes. UAL noted that they had several RDASs that state that the inspection requirements of the RDAS supersede ALI 531110 for the repaired fasteners. UAL stated that these repairs involved enlarging the holes and fasteners, thereby making it impossible for them to accomplish the inspections in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015.

We disagree with revising paragraph (l) of this AD to specify terminating action to paragraph (g) of this AD. An operator who is unable to complete certain requirements in this AD due to existing repairs may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (s)(1) of this AD.

Request To Remove or Revise Paragraph (n) of the Proposed AD

AAL requested that paragraph (n) of the proposed AD be revised to remove requirements to obtain new repair instructions for any airplanes on which repairs were done using the instructions in an Airbus RDAS unrelated to ALI task 531110. AAL noted that the original RDAS approval was given by an EASA DOA, so new approval should not be needed. Instead, AAL suggested that the issuer of the RDASs should be required to revise the RDASs as necessary.

UAL requested that paragraph (n) of the proposed AD be removed. UAL stated that determining if a repair is unrelated to ALI task 531110 may be inconclusive, since the ALI task is an inspection that may or may not be referenced in a documented repair. UAL added that each repair approval will have damage tolerance considerations regardless of how the damage was found. UAL further noted that if a repair unrelated to ALI task 531110 prevents inspection or repair as specified in the proposed AD, operators would need to request an AMOC.

We disagree with the commenters' requests. EASA has determined that repairs unrelated to ALI task 531110, which could include minor repairs unrelated to the unsafe condition, may not adequately address the unsafe condition. For this reason, operators must request new corrective actions for such repairs, as specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.

Requests To Revise Repair Instructions for Airplanes on Which Certain Repairs Were Previously Applied

UAL and AAL requested that paragraphs (i) and (j) of the proposed AD be revised to list specific affected manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs). In addition, UAL and AAL requested that the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) revise the Airbus RDASs to correct any problems. AAL pointed out that the original RDAS was approved by an EASA DOA and stated that operators should therefore not be required to obtain a new approval. UAL requested that if we do not provide revised RDASs or a list of affected MSNs, we instead provide a pre-defined solution for the repair. UAL suggested that we should provide instructions for replacing EN6114 fasteners with EN6115 fasteners. UAL further requested that if the repairs require case-by-case evaluations, the repair instructions should define the repair compliance time, rather than having a set 24 month compliance time, which may not work for every configuration.

UAL also noted that the issue with Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 issue A or B is that it called out the wrong fastener; EN6115 should have been used instead of EN6114.

UAL requested that we add a statement to paragraph (j) of this AD stating that no additional repair instructions are needed if a repair was accomplished using Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 issue A or B and EN6115 fasteners.

We disagree with the commenters' requests to revise paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD to list specific affected MSNs. EASA, as the state of design authority, and Airbus have both stated that they do not have knowledge of prior approved repairs; therefore we do not have a list of affected MSNs. In addition, an RDAS is an Airbus document that is not approved by the FAA, and the FAA has no authority to require Airbus to revise the RDAS. Therefore, each existing repair must be individually analyzed before a new corrective action can be provided. For this reason, we are not able to provide a single pre-defined solution for the repair that would address every affected configuration. We have determined that 24 months is an appropriate time frame to address the unsafe condition related to the EN6114 fasteners. An AMOC in accordance with paragraph (s)(1) of this AD may be requested if additional time is needed to address the unsafe condition.

We do not agree to add a statement to paragraphs (i) or (j) of this AD regarding no additional repair instructions are necessary if those repairs were applied with the installation of EN6115 fasteners, but we do agree to clarify that paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD only apply to airplanes on which Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 issue A or B or any other repair involving the installation of EN6114 fasteners was applied. If EN6115 fasteners were installed in the accomplishment of Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 issue A or B or any other repair, the actions specified in paragraphs (i) or (j) of this AD are not required on the repaired airplane.

Request To Include Corrections to Service Information

UAL requested that we update paragraph (k) of the proposed AD to reflect corrections to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015. UAL noted that Airbus has released Operators Information Transmission (OIT) 15-0097, Revision 01, dated January 7, 2016, to correct discrepancies in the effectivity section and existing hole diameters for certain subtasks in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We have added paragraph (r) to this AD to clarify the hole-diameter correction provided in Airbus OIT 15-0097, Revision 01, dated January 7, 2016. We have also updated other paragraphs of this AD that refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, to include this exception. We also acknowledge the discrepancy in the effectivity section of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, and the correction provided in Airbus OIT 15-0097, Revision 01, dated January 7, 2016. However, the applicability of this AD does not refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Verify Title of Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (n) of This AD

Virgin America requested that we review the title of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD. Virgin America noted that the related MCAI table refers to airplanes having not embodied any of “mod 20416 and mod 21999,” while the proposed AD refers to “pre-modification 20416 or pre-modification 21999” airplanes. Virgin America suggested this might be a typographical error, and asked that it be corrected if it is in error.

We acknowledge that the wording in the MCAI and this AD is not the same and agree to clarify. Table 1 of the MCAI is intended to apply to airplanes that have not embodied any part of modification 20416 or any part of modification 21999. Therefore, it is accurate to state “pre-modification 20416 or pre-modification 21999 airplanes.” We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Verify Referenced Service Information is at the Latest Revision

UAL requested that we verify the service bulletins referenced in the proposed AD are at the latest revision level. UAL noted this would eliminate the need to request an AMOC immediately following publication of this AD.

We agree with the commenter's request. We have verified that no revisions of the referenced service information have been published since we issued our proposed AD.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued the following service information.

• Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, which describes procedures for rototest inspections for cracking of the holes in certain fuselage frames and crossbeams.

• Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, which describes procedures for modifying the airplane, including cold working instructions in certain fuselage frames and crossbeams.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 928 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections 116 work-hours × $85 per hour = $9,860 per inspection cycle $960 $10,820 per inspection cycle $10,040,960 per inspection cycle. Optional Modification 28 work-hours × times; $85 per hour = $2,380 3,020 $5,400 Up to $5,011,200.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-14-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-19329; Docket No. FAA-2017-1093; Product Identifier 2017-NM-018-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1) Airplanes on which Airbus modification 161255 has been embodied in production.

(2) Model A319 series airplanes on which Airbus modifications 28238, 28162, and 28342 have been concurrently embodied in production.

(3) Model A318 series airplanes on which Airbus modification 39195 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of early cracking on the four holes of the crossbeam splicing at certain fuselage frames (FR). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20, on both the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, which can result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane due to the failure of structural components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Rototest Inspections

Before exceeding the threshold specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD, or table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration (pre- or post-modification 20416 or pre- or post-modification 21999): Do a special detailed (rototest) inspection of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20 on both LH and RH sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at the intervals specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD, or table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD, as applicable to airplane configuration (pre- or post-modification 20416 or pre- or post-modification 21999).

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ER19JY18.002 ER19JY18.003 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C (h) Post-Inspection Actions

Depending on the results from any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is detected: Before further flight, do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015; except where Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate repair, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), accomplish corrective actions before further flight in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s)(2) of this AD. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions.

(2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no cracks are detected: Before further flight, do all applicable fastener installations, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015.

(i) Airplanes on Which Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 With Installation of EN6114 Countersunk Fasteners Was Applied on the Frame and/or Crossbeam

For airplanes on which Airbus Repair Instruction R53112926 at issue A or B with installation of EN6114 countersunk fasteners was applied on the frame and/or crossbeam at FR16 LH or RH, or at FR20 LH or RH: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Airplanes on Which a Repair With Installation of EN6114 Countersunk Fasteners Was Applied on the Frame and/or Crossbeam

For airplanes on which a repair with installation of EN6114 countersunk fasteners, approved by the FAA, EASA, Airbus's EASA DOA, or an EASA DOA (other than Airbus's EASA DOA), was applied on the frame and/or crossbeam at FR16 LH or RH, or at FR20 LH or RH, in the area covered by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Optional Terminating Action for Airplanes Post-Modification 20416 or Post-Modification 21999

Modification of an airplane post-modification 20416 or post-modification 21999 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

(l) Information on Post-Repair Actions for Certain Airplanes

For an airplane that has been inspected per ALI task 531110 and repaired before the effective date of this AD using the instructions in an Airbus Repair Design Approval Sheet (RDAS): each applicable RDAS contains next inspection and compliance time for the inspection for each repaired hole.

(m) Partial Terminating Action for Airplanes Post-Modification 20416 or Post-Modification 21999

For an airplane post-modification 20416 or post-modification 21999, modification in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD, for the applicable fastener holes, where no damage or cracks were detected (i.e., those not repaired) during the latest inspection as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections of those fastener holes as required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.

(n) Actions for Airplanes With Certain Repairs

For an airplane that has been repaired before the effective date of this AD in the areas described in this AD using the instructions in an Airbus RDAS unrelated to ALI task 531110: Before exceeding the compliance times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD or table 2 to paragraphs (g) and (n) of this AD, as applicable, contact the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for corrective action instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Accomplishment of corrective action(s) on an airplane, as required by this paragraph, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, as applicable, unless specified otherwise in the instructions.

(o) Terminating Action for ALI Tasks

(1) Accomplishment of an inspection as required by paragraph (g) of this AD or instructions as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 531110, for that airplane.

(2) Modification of the two upper rows of fasteners of the crossbeam splicing at FR16 and FR20 on both LH and RH sides of an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, except as required by paragraph (r) of this AD, as specified in paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD, constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of ALI task 531110, for those holes for that airplane.

(p) No Reporting Requirement

Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015, specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD does not include that requirement.

(q) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, dated June 29, 2015.

(r) Service Information Exceptions

Where Subtasks 531295-960-001-001 and 532195-960-002-001 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015, refer to actions when an existing hole diameter is “more than or equal to the minimum starting hole diameter,” this AD requires applicable actions in cases where the hole diameter is “more than or equal to the maximum starting hole diameter.”

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

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

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (p) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(t) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0139, dated July 14, 2016, 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-2017-1093.

(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) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (u)(3) and (u)(4) of this AD.

(u) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1286, Revision 01, dated December 22, 2015.

(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1295, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 29, 2015.

(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.

(4) 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.

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

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 29, 2018. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-14687 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 61, 67, 91, and 120 Settlement Policy for Commercial Pilots in Drug and Alcohol Testing Cases AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION:

Notification of enforcement policy.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is adopting a procedure for prompt settlement agreements between the FAA and commercial pilots who have: Received a verified positive result for a Department of Transportation (DOT)-required drug test; received a DOT-required alcohol test result of .04 or above alcohol concentration; refused to submit to a DOT-required drug or alcohol test in violation of FAA regulations; or acted or attempted to act as a crewmember of an aircraft in commercial operations in violation of specified FAA regulations under this policy that proscribe the use, being under the influence or affects, or while have proscribed levels of alcohol or drugs. The settlement agreement procedures in this notification are generally available to pilots who, but for the disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refusal to submit to a DOT test, or violation of the specified alcohol- and drug-related FAA regulations prohibiting acting or attempting to act as a crewmember, would be qualified for a pilot certificate and who are first-time violators of these drug or alcohol provisions.

DATES:

The enforcement policy is effective October 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Barry, Manager, Policy/Audit/Evaluation, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Federal Aviation Administration. 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8198; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A commercial pilot who receives a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refuses a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violates § 91.17(a)(1) through (4) is subject to the revocation of airman certificates issued under 14 CFR part 61 and airman medical certificates issued under 14 CFR part 67. Under 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2), unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person whose pilot, flight instructor, or ground instructor certificate has been revoked may not apply for any certificate, rating, or authorization for one year after the date the FAA issued the revocation order.

Many commercial pilots who receive a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refuse a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violate § 91.17(a)(1) through (4) promptly enter into the Human Intervention Motivation Study (“HIMS”) program, which is a substance recovery program for such pilots.1 If a pilot undergoes evaluation, and successfully completes appropriate treatment and remains under comprehensive continuing care in accordance with the HIMS program, the pilot may become eligible for an authorization for special issuance of an airman medical certificate (“special issuance”) well before the completion of an FAA investigation into the matter, initiation of legal enforcement action based on the investigation, and passage of the time period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2).2

1 A pilot is not permitted to fly commercially after receiving a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result or having refused a DOT drug or alcohol test unless the pilot completes a substance abuse professional (SAP) evaluation and undergoes referral for education/treatment and return-to-duty testing. Further, under 14 CFR 61.53(a), a pilot is prohibited from acting as a required flight crew member when he or she knows, or has reason to know, that he or she has a disqualifying medical condition, which includes substance abuse or dependence under 14 CFR part 67.

2 Under 14 CFR 67.401(a), the Federal Air Surgeon has discretion to grant a special issuance to a pilot who does not meet the requirement for unrestricted airman medical certification if the airman can show to the satisfaction of the Federal Air Surgeon that the duties authorized by the class of medical certificate applied for can be performed without endangering public safety during the period in which the authorization would be in force.

Indeed, following the discovery of a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, DOT drug or alcohol test refusal, or violation of 14 CFR 91.17(a)(1) through (4), the FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division (“AAM-800”) investigates the apparent violation, which includes interviews and the collection of evidence, and develops an enforcement investigative report (“EIR”), which is subject to AAM-800 management review. If AAM-800 management deems the EIR sufficient, it transmits the EIR to the Office of the Chief Counsel's Enforcement Division (“AGC-300”) for additional review to ensure, among other things, evidentiary sufficiency and compliance with law and policy. Consistent with FAA policy, AGC-300 issues an order revoking pilot and airman medical certificates only after the thorough review necessary to ensure that legal enforcement action involving the revocation of certificates is appropriate. Although the FAA normally issues emergency orders of revocation for the types of drug or alcohol violations discussed in this notification, the FAA necessarily takes the appropriate amount of time to ensure that the issuance of the order is reasonable and supportable. Accordingly, the period of time between the FAA's discovery of a drug or alcohol violation and the issuance of a certificate action can be lengthy. Further, the additional time period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2) adds up to a year after the issuance of an order of revocation. During the period from the discovery of the violation to the expiration of the time period specified in 14 CFR 61.13(d)(2), a pilot may have long successfully completed recovery steps necessary to be found qualified for a special issuance.

Policy Statement

Under the new prompt settlement procedure, the FAA will send notification to commercial pilots who receive a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refuse a DOT drug or alcohol test, or violate § 91.17(a)(1) through (4) in commercial operations. The notification will inform the pilot that he or she may contact AAM-800 within ten days of receipt of the notice to request consideration for a prompt settlement of the legal enforcement action. The FAA will send the notification soon after it discovers the violation.

If the pilot requests to be considered for the new settlement procedure, the FAA will determine whether the pilot is eligible for the process. The procedure is not available where there is a question about a pilot's qualification to hold a certificate other than that presented by the disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refusal to submit to a DOT test, or violation of § 91.17(a)(1) through (4), or where the pilot is not a first-time violator of these drug or alcohol testing provisions. If the FAA deems application of the prompt settlement procedure is appropriate, AGC-300 enforcement counsel will provide the pilot, or his or her legal representative, a formal agreement that sets forth the conditions for prompt settlement. The terms of the settlement agreement will normally include the following provisions.

(1) The settlement agreement must be executed by the parties within ten days after the FAA transmits the agreement to the pilot.

(2) The FAA will issue an emergency order revoking all certificates the pilot holds that were issued under 14 CFR parts 61 and 67 immediately upon receiving the fully executed settlement agreement.

(3) The emergency order of revocation will: (i) Require the immediate surrender of all certificates the pilot holds that were issued under 14 CFR parts 61 and 67 to enforcement counsel; (ii) notify the pilot that the failure to immediately surrender these certificates could subject the pilot to further legal enforcement action, including a civil penalty; and (iii) inform the pilot that the FAA will not accept an application for a new certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61 for a period of a year from the date of the issuance of the emergency order of revocation.

(4) The pilot will waive all appeal rights from the emergency order of revocation.

(5) The parties will agree to bear their own costs and attorney fees, if any, in connection with the matter.

(6) The pilot will agree to not initiate any litigation before any court, tribunal, or administrative entity concerning any costs or attorney fees, including applications under the Equal Access to Justice Act, incurred as a result of the above-referenced matter.

(7) The pilot will agree to waive any and all causes of action against the FAA and its current and/or former officials and employees relating to the above-referenced matter.

This procedure is expected to allow pilots who have established qualifications to hold a new 14 CFR part 61 certificate, and have met the requirements under 14 CFR part 67 for a special issuance consistent with participation in the HIMS program, to more quickly assume commercial flight crewmember duties. Indeed, it should allow pilots to apply for a new pilot certificate closer in time to a determination that the pilot is eligible for a special issuance (following timely evaluation, treatment, and continuing comprehensive care in accordance with the HIMS program). Further, the added predictability of this process should allow pilots who have received a disqualifying DOT drug or alcohol test result, refused to submit to a DOT test, or violated § 91.17(a)(1) through (4) to focus effort and energy on the treatment and recovery process, and allow both the pilot and FAA to better allocate limited resources.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2018. Naomi Tsuda, Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018-15352 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0676] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate a filming event for a movie. This deviation authorizes the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on September 1, 2018, to 12:01 a.m. on September 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0676 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Multnomah County, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Hawthorne Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 13.1, at Portland, OR. The requested deviation is to accommodate a filming event for a movie. To facilitate this event, the draw of the subject bridge will be allowed to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to marine traffic from 6 p.m. on September 1, 2018, to 12:01 a.m. on September 2, 2018. The Hawthorne Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 49 feet in the closed-to-navigation position referenced to the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule is in 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(v). Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard requested objections to this deviation from local mariners via the Local Notice Mariners, and email. No objections were submitted to the Coast Guard.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: July 13, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-15434 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0521] Safety Zone; Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the San Diego, CA POPS Fireworks Display on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA on specific evenings from June 28, 2018 to September 2, 2018. This safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators, official vessels of the events, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for the events. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on July 27 and July 28, August 3, August 6 and August 7, August 11, August 17 and August 18, August 24 and August 25, and August 30 through September 2, 2018 for Item 1 in Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.1123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email LTJG Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations in 33 CFR 165.1123 for a safety zone on the waters of San Diego Bay, CA for the San Diego, CA POPS Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table 1, Item 1 of that section, from 9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on specific evenings from June 28, 2018 to September 2, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks events. Our regulation for Southern California Annual Firework Events for the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated areas for the events. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1123, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1123 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document 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 and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 27, 2018. J.R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2018-15440 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0578] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK; Correction AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on July 12, 2018. The Coast Guard issued a final rule republishing its 2014 rule that established a permanent safety zone on the navigable waters of Port Valdez within a 200-yard radius of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Port Valdez Ferry Terminal.

DATES:

Effective July 19, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0578 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 rulemaking, call or email LTJG, Carlos M. Quintero, MSU Valdez, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 907-835-7209, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In FR 2018-14863 appearing on page 32208 in the Federal Register of Thursday, July 12, 2018, the following correction is made:

§ 165.1712a [Corrected]
1. On page 32209, in the second column, in part 165, in amendment 2, the section heading “§ 165.1712a Safety Zone; Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez, Valdez, AK.” is corrected to read “§ 165.1714 Safety Zone; Alaska Marine Highway System Port Valdez Ferry Terminal, Port Valdez, Valdez, AK.”. Date: July 16, 2018. Katia Kroutil, Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-15438 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-1095] RIN 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard Ninth District Commander is amending the navigational and operational restrictions of the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) near Romeoville, Illinois, and removing the redundant Safety Zone currently in place. The purpose of this amendment is to improve safety and clarify regulations for vessels transiting the navigable waters located adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal barrier system (EDBS).

DATES:

This rule is effective August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2017-1095 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 rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2131, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSSC Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal DHS Department of Homeland Security EDBS Electric Dispersal Barrier System E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law RNA Regulated Navigation Area § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The purpose of this rule is to eliminate a redundant safety zone and remove several requirements from a Regulated Navigation Area that are no longer necessary. There currently exists, in 33 CFR 165.923, certain navigational, environmental, and operational restrictions on all vessels transiting the navigable waters located adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal fish barrier. Title 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1) establishes a safety zone in the CSSC from mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7. Additionally, 33 CFR 165.923(b)(1) establishes a regulated navigation area from mile marker 295.5 to mile marker 297.2. There also exists, in 33 CFR 165.930, a safety zone from mile marker 286.0 to mile marker 333.3 that includes the totality of the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1), rendering it redundant.

In 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center completed a marine safety risk assessment for the waters of the CSSC in the vicinity of the Aquatic Nuisance Species EDBS near Romeoville, Illinois. The overarching goal of the risk assessment was to determine the adequacy of present risk mitigation strategies and, if necessary, recommend alternatives to the present strategies. The report generated at the conclusion of the risk assessment noted confusion among waterway users regarding the boundaries and requirements for the safety zone and RNA outlined in 33 CFR 165.923. The report also identified certain requirements still in effect, which had basis in the existing rule, that have since changed over the period of the rule and no longer apply.

On January 30, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL” (USCG-2017-1095), 83 FR 4171. The NPRM discussed the need for the rule and invited the public to comment on the proposed regulatory action. During the comment period that ended April 30, 2018, we received two comments. One comment was not relevant to the proposed rule. The second comment, from the American Waterways Operators, stated support for the proposed RNA amendments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to address recommended amendments to the regulations based on the aforementioned report's conclusions and recommendations. The changes are intended to improve safety, reduce confusion and eliminate unnecessary burden to vessels transiting the safety zone and RNA of the CSSC in the vicinity of the EDBS near Romeoville, Illinois.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published January 30, 2018. Other than some minor stylistic changes, there are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The purpose of the safety zone delineated in § 165.923(a)(1) is to inhibit the potential transfer of live Silver or Asian carp, viable eggs or gametes into the waterway north of the electric barrier. To serve this purpose, the safety zone requirements outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) restrict vessels transiting with non-potable water on board if they intend to release that water in any form within or on the other side of the safety zone. A larger safety zone, described at 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2), also encompasses this same area. That safety zone, however, does not contain regulations for the transit of non-potable water.

The Coast Guard will eliminate the CSSC safety zone outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1). This revision eliminates redundancy in regulations by using the larger safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2) to regulate the CSSC. The requirements in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) for the transit of non-potable water will be preserved, but incorporated into the CSSC's RNA regulations in what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2). Therefore, 33 CFR 165.923(b) will become 33 CFR 165.923(a) with the elimination of the safety zone. The following paragraphs describe additional changes made to the RNA regulations.

The Coast Guard will remove the RNA's bow boat requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C). The RNA currently requires that all up-bound and down-bound tows that consist of barges carrying flammable liquid cargoes (Grade A through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or heated to within 15 degrees Fahrenheit of flash point) engage the services of a bow boat at all times until the entire tow is clear of the RNA. The original bow boat requirement was intended to reduce the possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between a barge carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County Generating Station Coal Wharf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. At times barge fleets were three-wide (approximately 105 feet), extended into the 160-wide cut, less than 500 feet downstream of Barrier II-A. Since barge loading and fleeting ceased in September 2012, the basis for this requirement no longer exists.

The Coast Guard is modifying the requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) that require commercial tows be made up with only wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow to prevent arcing while transiting the electric barrier and to prevent high contact potentials between vessels in the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that adequate means of securing a tow configuration are not exclusive to the use of wire rope and towboats frequently use high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene, or composite fiber ropes (“soft-lines”) as wing-wires or face-wires, and occasionally as barge lashings. Government observers have seen towboats use a single, wire-rope from barge winch to towboat h-bitt, thus providing adequate electrical connectivity, if sufficiently taut, and contacting bare-metal surfaces. The Coast Guard thus will continue to require that commercial tows transiting the RNA ensure the maintenance of electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow through use of wire rope, but allow use of soft lines to be used in addition to secure a tow. To account for use of soft-lines, the Coast Guard proposed to eliminate the requirement that a tow exclusively use wire rope, by removing the words “with only” from the paragraph and allowing an appropriate alternative.

Finally, the Coast Guard will add a requirement to the RNA regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a “no-wake” speed. Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum safe speed for vessels transiting the RNA. Throughout the course of the marine risk assessment, the project team ascertained that the largest marine safety risk is electric shock to a person in the water. Video recordings and shore-observer accounts indicate that many, smaller recreational vessels transit the EDBS at a speed that generates significant wake. Also, light-boat transits drag a wake that causes surging of barges moored to the loading facility just north of the pipeline arch. A no-wake zone will reduce this risk not only to persons aboard vessels, but also to persons working ashore alongside the RNA.

The aforementioned changes to the RNA regulations will require a slight reordering of what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(A) through (K). With the removal of the safety zone, these regulations will be found in 33 CFR 165.923(a). The removal of the bow boat requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) will cause the other requirements to move up a letter, becoming the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(C) through (J). The “no wake” requirement will then become the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K) and the requirements for the transit of non-potable water will be added in a new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(L).

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 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

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.

The rule updates an already existing rule. It adds minor changes to that already existing rule. These changes involve the elimination of a redundant safety zone, the removal of several requirements from a Regulated Navigational Area that are no longer necessary, and adds a “no wake” requirement to the safety zone. Each of these is discussed in greater depth below. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. A summary of the reasoning for this is provided below. For a more thorough explanation of the reasoning the reader is advised to refer to the NPRM on this rule that was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2018.

This final rule eliminates the CSSC safety zone outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1). This will reduce redundancy in regulations as the CSSC safety zone is already regulated in an equivalent manner by the larger safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2). Hence it is expected that there will be no cost impact associated with this change. In addition, it will reduce confusion and uncertainty that the public may face. The American Waterways Operators (AWO), in a comment made to the docket, agrees with this assessment.1 The AWO, in its comment, stated “removing the redundant safety zone will decrease confusion for vessels operators in the transiting area”.

1 Public comment received from the American Waterways Operators in response to the NPRM on this rule, dated April 30, 2018. A copy of this can be found in the docket for this rule.

A second change made by this rule is the incorporation of the requirements for the transit of non-potable water, contained in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2), into 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2). As this is only a move of the water transit requirements from one section of the CFR to another part of the CFR no costs experienced. In addition, the public will face less uncertainty due to the reduction of overlapping regulatory requirements.

A third change the rule will make will be the elimination of the RNA's bow boat requirement, contained in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C). The RNA currently requires that all up and down bound tows that consist of barges carrying flammable liquid cargoes engage the services of a bow boat at all times until the entire tow is clear of the RNA.2 The purpose of this requirement of 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) was to reduce the possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between a barge carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County Generating Station Coal Warf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. As barge loading and fleeting at this facility stopped in September 2012, the basis of this requirement no longer exists. Hence there are expected to be reduced costs, for the regulated public, associated with the removal of this requirement.3

2 For a detailed list of the flammable liquid cargoes covered, please reference the NPRM for this rule.

3 The AWO, in a letter in response to the NPRM for this final rulemaking (dated April 30, 2018 and contained in the docket for the NPRM), agreed with this conclusion. It stated “[the] AWO greatly appreciates the removal of the bow boat requirement for all tows moving flammable liquid cargoes. . . . These added operational costs have been a burden to our customers, increasing cost to consumers. The Coast Guard's proposal to eliminate the bow boat requirement will benefit the economic well-being of the towing industry, its customers, and the national economy”.

A fourth change involves the modification of the requirement in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) relating to wire ropes used in commercial tows. Currently this requires that only wire rope be used in commercial tows. The purpose is to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow during the duration of the tow. This reduces the possibility of an accident stemming from the loss of power to any segment of the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that there are high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene or composite fiber ropes (“soft-lines”) that also provide adequate electrical connectivity. The modification hence expands the ability of in-scope vessels to use these forms of ropes as well as wire ropes. This, in turn, provides vessel owners greater flexibility in terms of the type of ropes they use at with no additional cost being imposed by the regulation.

Lastly, the Coast Guard proposed to add a requirement to the RNA regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a “no-wake” speed. The new “no-wake” requirement is contained in the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K). Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum safe speed for vessels transiting the RNA. This “no-wake” requirement is expected to reduce the danger posed by electrocution to persons on board vessels or falling overboard as well as to persons walking alongside the RNA on shore.4 Wakes currently caused by vessels exceeding a “no-wake” speed carry this danger because, in the RNA, the Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal fish barrier generates a highly charged electrical field.

4 The AWO, in a letter dated April 30, 2018, in response to the NPRM for this final rule (a copy can be found in the docket accompanying this NPRM) agrees with the Coast Guard's assessment. The AWO writes: “AWO applauds applauds the Coast Guard's proposal to require all vessels to transit the RNA at a “no-wake” speed to help mitigate many of the safety risks associated with transiting the Electric Dispersal Barrier System (EDBS). Located near Romeoville, Illinois, the EDBS is the only location the Coast Guard will not rescue individuals who fall overboard due to the unsafe conditions for its highly-trained personnel. Studies conducted by the U.S. Navy confirmed a 50% fatality rate if an individual falls into the electrified water. Given the extreme dangers associated with the EDBS, towboat operators are extremely cautious when transiting the RNA. Unfortunately, towboat operators have encountered recreational vessels operating at speeds inside the RNA that pose serious safety risks to surrounding vessels and crew. By introducing a no-wake speed, all vessels will be required to transit the area in a safe and responsible manner.”

The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the NPRM published with respect to this final rule. One comment was not relevant to the proposed rule. The second comment, from the American Waterways Operators, stated that it agreed with a number of the proposed RNA amendments made in the NPRM (and included in this final rule). The AWO's comments in favor of many of the proposed changes have already been mentioned above. The AWO had no negative comments in response to any of the proposed RNA amendments.

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.

The revision of the safety zone and RNA will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed revision imposes minor additional requirements on industry; and provides clarity to preexisting requirements by removing redundancies. This rule, by removing the bow boat requirement due to the ceased barge loading and fleeting operations, is expected to reduce regulated costs.

The increased flexibility provided to small entity vessel owners and operators by permitting them to use, in addition to wire ropes, high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene or composite fiber ropes (“soft-lines”) is also expected to have no cost impact on them while simultaneously providing them with greater flexibility on the types of wires they can use.

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) nor will it modify an existing collection.

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves revisions of the safety zone and RNA that provide clarity to preexisting requirements. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L60 pertains to establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Revise § 165.923 to read as follows:
§ 165.923 Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

(a) Regulated navigation area and regulations. (1) The following is a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.5 and mile marker 297.2.

(2)(i) The general regulations contained in § 165.13 apply.

(ii) Vessels that comply with the following restrictions are permitted to transit the RNA:

(A) Vessels must be greater than 20 feet in length.

(B) Vessels must not be a personal or human powered watercraft (i.e., jet skis, waver runners, kayaks, row boats, etc.).

(C) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the RNA and must make a SECURITÉ call when approaching the RNA to announce intentions and work out passing arrangements.

(D) Commercial tows transiting the RNA must use wire rope or appropriate alternatives to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.

(E) All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the RNA.

(F) Vessels may enter the RNA for the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable, dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other activity, which could disturb the bottom of the RNA.

(G) Except for law enforcement and emergency response personnel, all personnel on vessels transiting the RNA should remain inside the cabin, or as inboard as practicable. If personnel must be on open decks, they must wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device.

(H) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending banks of the RNA.

(I) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the towboat or tow is located in the RNA.

(J) Persons onboard any vessel transiting the RNA in accordance with this rule or otherwise are advised they do so at their own risk.

(K) All vessels transiting the RNA are required to transit at a no wake speed but still maintain bare steerageway.

(L)(1) All vessels are prohibited from transiting the restricted navigation area with any non-potable water on board if they intend to release that water in any form within, or on the other side of the restricted navigation area. Non-potable water includes, but is not limited to, any water taken on board to control or maintain trim, draft, stability, or stresses of the vessel. Likewise, it includes any water taken on board due to free communication between the hull of the vessel and exterior water. Potable water is water treated and stored aboard the vessel that is suitable for human consumption.

(2) Vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted navigation area if they have taken steps to prevent the release, in any form, of that water in or on the other side of the restricted navigation area. Alternatively, vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted navigation area if they have plans to dispose of the water in a biologically sound manner.

(3) Vessels with non-potable water aboard that intend to discharge on the other side of the restricted navigation area must contact the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives prior to transit and obtain permission to transit and discharge. Examples of discharges that may be approved include plans to dispose of the water in a biologically sound manner or demonstrate through testing that the non-potable water does not contain potential live Silver or Asian carp, viable eggs, or gametes.

(4) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone by vessels with non-potable water on board is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander, his or her designated representatives, or an on-scene representative.

(5) The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, may further designate an “on-scene” representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM radio Channel 16 or through the Coast Guard Lake Michigan Command Center at (414) 747-7182.

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

Designated representative means the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.

On-scene representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will be aboard a Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be onshore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer.

Vessel means every description of watercraft of other artificial contrivance used, or capable or being used, as a means of transportation on water. This definition includes, but is not limited to, barges.

(c) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this section and any additional instructions or orders of the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives. Any person on board any vessel transiting this RNA in accordance with this rule or otherwise does so at his or her own risk.

(d) Waiver. For any vessel, the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives may waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner safety.

Dated: July 16, 2018. J.M. Nunan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-15428 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0524] Safety Zone; Swim Event in Captain of the Port New York Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified date and times provided below. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators and participants from hazards associated with a swim event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES:

The regulation for the safety zone described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the date and times listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified date and time as indicated in the table below.

Table Swim Across America Safety Zone 33 CFR 165.160 (3.1) • Location: Participants will swim between Glenn Cove and Larchmont, New York and an area of Hempstead Harbor between Glen Cove and the vicinity of Umbrella Point. This Safety Zone includes all waters within a 100-yard radius of each participating swimmer.
  • • Date: July 28, 2018.
  • • Time: 5:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
  • Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zone unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: June 28, 2018. J.P. Tama, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15441 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 685 [Docket ID ED-2017-OPE-0112] RIN 1840-AD28 Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program; Corrections AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Federal Register of February 14, 2018, the Department of Education (Department) published a final rule (the delay rule) delaying, until July 1, 2019, the effective date of selected provisions of the final regulations entitled Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program (the 2016 final regulations), published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016. This rule inadvertently omitted regulations from the list in the DATES section of regulations for which the effective date is delayed. This document removes the regulations that we intended to delay from the text of the Code of Federal Regulations and specifies July 1, 2019 as their effective date.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 19, 2018 except for amendatory instruction 3 which is effective July 1, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Annmarie Weisman, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Mail Stop 294-20, Washington, DC 20202-6244. Telephone: (202) 453-6712. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the delay rule (83 FR 6458), the list of regulations in the DATES section in the first column on page 6459, for which the effective date is delayed until July 1, 2019, inadvertently excluded § 685.300(b)(11), (b)(12), and (d) through (i). Those regulations were properly included in the list of regulations for which the effective date is delayed in the body of the document (in the third column of page 6459) and discussed elsewhere in the document. However, to effectuate this correction and restore the Code of Federal Regulations to properly reflect the delay, we are publishing amendatory language that will remove these provisions.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the Secretary's practice to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the actions in this document are merely to correct a technical error, and thus, the Secretary has determined that publication of a proposed rule is unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 685

    Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of Education amends part 685 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 685—WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 685 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1070g, 1087a, et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    § 685.300 [Amended]
    2. Effective July 19, 2018, § 685.300 is amended by: a. Removing paragraph (b)(11) and redesignating paragraph (b)(12) as paragraph (b)(11). b. Removing paragraphs (d) through (i). 3. Effective July 1, 2019, § 685.300 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(11) as paragraph (b)(12). b. Adding a new paragraph (b)(11). c. Adding paragraphs (d) through (i).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 685.300 Agreements between an eligible school and the Secretary for participation in the Direct Loan Program.

    (b) * * *

    (11) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (d) through (i) of this section regarding student claims and disputes.

    (d) Borrower defense claims in an internal dispute process. The school will not compel any student to pursue a complaint based on a borrower defense claim through an internal dispute process before the student presents the complaint to an accrediting agency or government agency authorized to hear the complaint.

    (e) Class action bans. (1) The school will not seek to rely in any way on a predispute arbitration agreement or on any other predispute agreement with a student who has obtained or benefited from a Direct Loan, with respect to any aspect of a class action that is related to a borrower defense claim, including to seek a stay or dismissal of particular claims or the entire action, unless and until the presiding court has ruled that the case may not proceed as a class action and, if that ruling may be subject to appellate review on an interlocutory basis, the time to seek such review has elapsed or the review has been resolved.

    (2) Reliance on a predispute arbitration agreement, or on any other predispute agreement, with a student, with respect to any aspect of a class action includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:

    (i) Seeking dismissal, deferral, or stay of any aspect of a class action.

    (ii) Seeking to exclude a person or persons from a class in a class action.

    (iii) Objecting to or seeking a protective order intended to avoid responding to discovery in a class action.

    (iv) Filing a claim in arbitration against a student who has filed a claim on the same issue in a class action.

    (v) Filing a claim in arbitration against a student who has filed a claim on the same issue in a class action after the trial court has denied a motion to certify the class but before an appellate court has ruled on an interlocutory appeal of that motion, if the time to seek such an appeal has not elapsed or the appeal has not been resolved.

    (vi) Filing a claim in arbitration against a student who has filed a claim on the same issue in a class action after the trial court in that class action has granted a motion to dismiss the claim and, in doing so, the court noted that the consumer has leave to refile the claim on a class basis, if the time to refile the claim has not elapsed.

    (3) Required provisions and notices:

    (i) The school must include the following provision in any agreements with a student recipient of a Direct Loan for attendance at the school, or, with respect to a Parent PLUS Loan, a student for whom the PLUS loan was obtained, that include any agreement regarding predispute arbitration or any other predispute agreement addressing class actions and that are entered into after the effective date of this regulation: “We agree that neither we nor anyone else will use this agreement to stop you from being part of a class action lawsuit in court. You may file a class action lawsuit in court or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit even if you do not file it. This provision applies only to class action claims concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Direct Loan was obtained. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (ii) When a predispute arbitration agreement or any other predispute agreement addressing class actions has been entered into before the effective date of this regulation and does not contain a provision described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the school must either ensure the agreement is amended to contain the provision specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section or provide the student to whom the agreement applies with the written notice specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.

    (iii) The school must ensure the agreement described in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section is amended to contain the provision specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(A) of this section or must provide the notice specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iii)(B) of this section to students no later than the exit counseling required under § 685.304(b), or the date on which the school files its initial response to a demand for arbitration or service of a complaint from a student who has not already been sent a notice or amendment.

    (A) Agreement provision. “We agree that neither we nor anyone else who later becomes a party to this agreement will use it to stop you from being part of a class action lawsuit in court. You may file a class action lawsuit in court or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit in court even if you do not file it. This provision applies only to class action claims concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (B) Notice provision. “We agree not to use any predispute agreement to stop you from being part of a class action lawsuit in court. You may file a class action lawsuit in court or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit even if you do not file it. This provision applies only to class action claims concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (f) Predispute arbitration agreements. (1)(i) The school will not enter into a predispute agreement to arbitrate a borrower defense claim, or rely in any way on a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to any aspect of a borrower defense claim.

    (ii) A student may enter into a voluntary post-dispute arbitration agreement with a school to arbitrate a borrower defense claim.

    (2) Reliance on a predispute arbitration agreement with a student with respect to any aspect of a borrower defense claim includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:

    (i) Seeking dismissal, deferral, or stay of any aspect of a judicial action filed by the student, including joinder with others in an action;

    (ii) Objecting to or seeking a protective order intended to avoid responding to discovery in a judicial action filed by the student; and

    (iii) Filing a claim in arbitration against a student who has filed a suit on the same claim.

    (3) Required provisions and notices:

    (i) The school must include the following provision in any predispute arbitration agreements with a student recipient of a Direct Loan for attendance at the school, or, with respect to a Parent PLUS Loan, a student for whom the PLUS loan was obtained, that include any agreement regarding arbitration and that are entered into after the effective date of this regulation: “We agree that neither we nor anyone else will use this agreement to stop you from bringing a lawsuit concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. You may file a lawsuit for such a claim or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit for such a claim even if you do not file it. This provision does not apply to lawsuits concerning other claims. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (ii) When a predispute arbitration agreement has been entered into before the effective date of this regulation that did not contain the provision specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section, the school must either ensure the agreement is amended to contain the provision specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) of this section or provide the student to whom the agreement applies with the written notice specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.

    (iii) The school must ensure the agreement described in paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this section is amended to contain the provision specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(A) of this section or must provide the notice specified in paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(B) of this section to students no later than the exit counseling required under § 685.304(b), or the date on which the school files its initial response to a demand for arbitration or service of a complaint from a student who has not already been sent a notice or amendment.

    (A) Agreement provision. “We agree that neither we nor anyone else who later becomes a party to this predispute arbitration agreement will use it to stop you from bringing a lawsuit concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. You may file a lawsuit for such a claim or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit for such a claim even if you do not file it. This provision does not apply to other claims. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (B) Notice provision. “We agree not to use any predispute arbitration agreement to stop you from bringing a lawsuit concerning our acts or omissions regarding the making of the Federal Direct Loan or the provision by us of educational services for which the Federal Direct Loan was obtained. You may file a lawsuit regarding such a claim or you may be a member of a class action lawsuit regarding such a claim even if you do not file it. This provision does not apply to any other claims. We agree that only the court is to decide whether a claim asserted in the lawsuit is a claim regarding the making of the Direct Loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was obtained.”

    (g) Submission of arbitral records. (1) A school must submit a copy of the following records to the Secretary, in the form and manner specified by the Secretary, in connection with any claim filed in arbitration by or against the school concerning a borrower defense claim:

    (i) The initial claim and any counterclaim.

    (ii) The arbitration agreement filed with the arbitrator or arbitration administrator.

    (iii) The judgment or award, if any, issued by the arbitrator or arbitration administrator.

    (iv) If an arbitrator or arbitration administrator refuses to administer or dismisses a claim due to the school's failure to pay required filing or administrative fees, any communication the school receives from the arbitrator or arbitration administrator related to such a refusal.

    (v) Any communication the school receives from an arbitrator or an arbitration administrator related to a determination that a predispute arbitration agreement regarding educational services provided by the school does not comply with the administrator's fairness principles, rules, or similar requirements, if such a determination occurs.

    (2) A school must submit any record required pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section within 60 days of filing by the school of any such record with the arbitrator or arbitration administrator and within 60 days of receipt by the school of any such record filed or sent by someone other than the school, such as the arbitrator, the arbitration administrator, or the student.

    (h) Submission of judicial records. (1) A school must submit a copy of the following records to the Secretary, in the form and manner specified by the Secretary, in connection with any claim concerning a borrower defense claim filed in a lawsuit by the school against the student or by any party, including a government agency, against the school:

    (i) The complaint and any counterclaim.

    (ii) Any dispositive motion filed by a party to the suit; and

    (iii) The ruling on any dispositive motion and the judgment issued by the court.

    (2) A school must submit any record required pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) of this section within 30 days of filing or receipt, as applicable, of the complaint, answer, or dispositive motion, and within 30 days of receipt of any ruling on a dispositive motion or a final judgment.

    (i) Definitions. For the purposes of paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section, the term—

    (1) “Borrower defense claim” means a claim that is or could be asserted as a borrower defense as defined in § 685.222(a)(5), including a claim other than one based on § 685.222(c) or (d) that may be asserted under § 685.222(b) if reduced to judgment;

    (2) “Class action” means a lawsuit in which one or more parties seek class treatment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or any State process analogous to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

    (3) “Dispositive motion” means a motion asking for a court order that entirely disposes of one or more claims in favor of the party who files the motion without need for further court proceedings;

    (4) “Predispute arbitration agreement” means any agreement, regardless of its form or structure, between a school or a party acting on behalf of a school and a student providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15260 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0100; FRL-9980-94—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Revisions to Part 9 Miscellaneous Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a request submitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on February 2, 2017, and supplemented on November 8, 2017, to revise the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO). The revision incorporates changes to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules entitled “Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous.” The revision updates existing source-specific rule requirements for ferrous cupola operations by removing obsolete rule language and makes a minor change to correct the citation to a Federal test method. The revision continues to result in attainment of the CO national ambient air quality standard.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0100. 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 (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    I. What are the State rule revisions? II. What action is EPA taking? III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the State rule revisions?

    On February 2, 2017, and supplemented on November 8, 2017, MDEQ submitted a request to incorporate revisions to Michigan's Air Pollution Control Rules in Chapter 336, Part 9—Emissions Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous (Part 9) in the Michigan SIP. Michigan submitted revisions to three separate rules in Part 9: R 336.1902—“Adoption of standards by reference” (Rule 902); R 336.1916—“Affirmative defense for excess emissions during start-up or shutdown” (Rule 916); and R 336.1930—“Emission of carbon monoxide from ferrous cupola operations” (Rule 930). This rule will only take action on Rule 930. The revisions to Rule 902 have already been approved into Michigan's SIP, and the revisions to Rule 916 will be addressed in a future action.

    Michigan's Rule 930 specifies CO emission limits for large ferrous cupola operations with a melting capacity of 20 tons or more per hour. Rule 930 currently approved into the Michigan SIP only applies to ferrous cupola operations in Saginaw, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties in Michigan. The rule is designed to require installation of afterburner control system, or equivalent, which reduces the CO emissions from the ferrous cupola by 90 percent.

    On May 3, 2018 (83 FR 19497), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Michigan's Part 9 Rule submitted by MDEQ on February 2, 2017, and supplemented on November 8, 2017, as a revision into Michigan's SIP. Specifically, we proposed to approve the revision that updates the applicability of Rule 930 to: (1) Remove an obsolete compliance date and requires immediate compliance, (2) remove the areas of the state that no longer contain ferrous cupola sources subject to the rule, and (3) correct the citation to a Federal test method to determine CO emission rates for rule compliance. The specific details of Michigan's SIP revision and the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR.

    EPA received no comments on the proposed action.

    II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Michigan's Part 9, specifically for Rule 930 submitted by MDEQ on February 2, 2017, and supplemented on November 8, 2017, as a revision to the Michigan SIP.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Michigan Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 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 Clean Air Act; and

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

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

    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 Clean Air Act, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

    2. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for “R 339.1930” under the heading “Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous” to read as follows:
    § 52.1170 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Michigan Regulations Michigan citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part 9. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions—Miscellaneous *         *         *         *         *         *         * R 339.1930 Emission of carbon monoxide from ferrous cupola operations 12/20/2016 7/19/2018, [insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2018-15339 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8537] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-3966.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain Federal
  • assistance
  • no longer
  • available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region I Massachusetts: Haverhill, City of, Essex County 250085 April 30, 1974, Emerg; February 16, 1983, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp July 19, 2018 July 19, 2018. Region V Ohio: Fairfield County, Unincorporated Areas 390158 March 21, 1977, Emerg; April 17, 1989, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do *   Do. Lancaster, City of, Fairfield County 390161 July 28, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Pickerington, City of, Fairfield and Franklin Counties 390162 June 11, 1976, Emerg; August 5, 1991, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Region VI Oklahoma: Billings, Town of, Noble County 400347 September 8, 1983, Emerg; June 19, 1985, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Tribe of Ponca Indians of Oklahoma, Noble and Kay Counties 400239 N/A, Emerg; July 15, 2008, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Red Rock, Town of, Noble County 400135 June 12, 1975, Emerg; May 25, 1978, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Region IX California: Elk Grove, City of, Sacramento County 060767 N/A, Emerg; October 15, 2001, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Folsom, City of, Sacramento County 060263 March 10, 1977, Emerg; January 6, 1982, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Rancho Cordova, City of, Sacramento County 060772 N/A, Emerg; September 15, 2004, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. Sacramento County, Unincorporated Areas 060262 March 31, 1972, Emerg; March 15, 1979, Reg; July 19, 2018, Susp ......do   Do. do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: June 29, 2018. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15372 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 672 [Docket No. FTA-2015-0014] RIN 2132-AB25 Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Transit Administration is issuing a final rule for the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program to provide revised minimum training requirements for Federal and State personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of transit systems and for transit agency personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight. The revised requirements reduce the number of training hours required by the interim training program.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this rule is August 20, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For program issues, contact FTA, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight (telephone: 202-366-1783 or email: [email protected]). For legal issues, contact Bruce Walker, FTA, Office of Chief Counsel (telephone: 202-366-9109 or email: [email protected]). Office hours are Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST), except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Statutory Authority B. Summary of Major Provisions C. Costs and Benefits II. Rulemaking Background III. Summary of NPRM Comments and FTA Responses IV. Revised Regulatory Evaluation V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary

    In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012), Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program (codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329), one element of which is the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP). As a first step to implementing the PTSCTP, FTA developed requirements for the interim safety certification training program (interim training program) which became effective on May 28, 2015 (see 80 FR 10619). FTA then published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on December 3, 2015 (80 FR 75639), which generally proposed to adopt the interim training program requirements for the PTSCTP final rule. As noted in Appendix A, the requirements in this final rule reduce the number of required training hours from a total of 181 hours (22.625 days) to 143 hours (17.875 days).

    More recently, Congress enacted the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (“FAST”) (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015). FAST did not make any amendments to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), the statute authorizing the PTSCTP, that would affect today's rulemaking. Therefore, for convenience and accurate context, this rule will refer to MAP-21 throughout the preamble for consistency with the NPRM.

    Today's rule revises the minimum training requirements for State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems that receive Federal transit funds. The rule also provides minimum training requirements for transit agency employees who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems that receive Federal transit funds. Although not subject to this rule, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), FTA personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail public transportation systems will adhere to the applicable SSOA training requirements listed in Appendix A.

    A. Statutory Authority

    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), which requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a public transportation safety certification training program for Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, and employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out the general provisions of this statutory requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2) and (f)(7).

    B. Summary of Major Provisions

    Today's rule adds a new part 672, Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum requirements to enhance the proficiency of transit safety oversight professionals. In general, FTA maintained much of what was proposed in the NPRM. The mandatory training requirements apply to personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail transit systems, and transit personnel with direct safety oversight responsibility of rail transit systems. Participation in the PTSCTP remains voluntary for State personnel, employees of bus transit agencies and the contractors directly responsible for safety oversight of public bus transportation systems.

    C. Costs and Benefits

    In general, FTA has retained the approach to costs contained in the NPRM. FTA quantified, to the extent possible, the costs associated with this rule. FTA expects that the codification of the PTSCTP will help promote a safety culture within the transit industry. This safety culture should help instill a transit agency-wide appreciation for shared goals, shared beliefs, best practices, and positive and vigilant attitudes towards safety.

    Where appropriate, FTA has modified the analysis for this rule from that of the NPRM. For example, in response to comments, FTA revised the hourly wage rate upward to better reflect average labor rates including benefits within the public transportation sector and factored in modest travel costs for attendance. Also, FTA has eliminated the 36-hour Transit System Security course and the 2-hour SMS Gap online course as mandatory components of the PTSCTP program. This change has resulted in a reduced burden on course participants. The regulatory analysis is conducted in two parts. First, under Executive Order 12866, by comparing the costs of issuing the rule in relation to practice prior to MAP-21 and second, under Executive Order 13771, since this final rule is considered a deregulatory action due to the reduction in existing safety training requirements.

    FTA used data from the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) and reviewed the public transit workforce's participation in FTA's voluntary safety training programs to establish a maximum and minimum number of personnel, including contractors, that would be affected by the PTSCTP. The interim training program on which this rule is modeled became effective on May 28, 2015. Thus far, enrollment in the interim training program aligns with the assumptions FTA posed in the NPRM.

    To determine annual costs for recipients to implement PTSCTP requirements, we continue with a minimum and maximum case scenario. For the minimum case, we maintain an assumption that all designated personnel under this program have received the Transit Safety and Security Program (TSSP) Certificate and require only the safety management system (SMS) portion of the coursework described in Appendix A of this rule. For the maximum case, we assume no one subject to the rule has a TSSP Certificate. In this scenario, all designated personnel will have to complete both the TSSP (minus the Transit System Security (TSS) course) and SMS coursework over a three (3) year period. However, in response to comments, some travel costs are now included for attending courses if participants are unable to attend locally. Also, since TSSP training was previously provided by TSI, the cost of that cannot be attributed to this final rule. The cost numbers were adjusted accordingly. As a result of the changes above, and extending the analysis period to ten years instead of three to include refresher training and staff turnover, the maximum cost estimate is adjusted to approximately $1.0 million annualized at 7 percent discount rate instead of the undiscounted $2.6 million per year over a three year period as noted in the NPRM.

    This final rule will replace the interim safety training program provisions issued in February 2015. The final rule eliminates two training provisions as mentioned above. The cost of the final rule therefore reduces the costs of the interim provisions by over $51,000 over a ten year period, discounted at a 7 percent rate for the minimum case scenario and $1.6 million respectively for the maximum case scenario, resulting in a net benefit for the agencies. This results in an annualized cost savings (benefits) of $7,300 and $2,258 respectively for the two scenarios at the 7 percent discount rate.

    We note that these costs do not reflect costs associated with any additional countermeasures that better trained personnel will take to increase safety that they would not have identified prior to the training. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(6)(C)(iv), recipients may use up to 0.5 percent of their FTA formula funds to cover up to 80 percent of costs of PTSCTP eligible expenditures.

    II. Rulemaking Background

    On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register on all aspects of FTA's safety authority, including the training program. (See 78 FR 61251 at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf). FTA noted that there are discrete and different skill-sets required for those who perform safety audit and examination functions compared to those who are directly responsible for safety oversight. Recognizing this distinction, FTA outlined its vision for the PTSCTP which included a wholly new FTA-sponsored training curriculum to enhance the technical proficiency of each category of these safety professionals.

    On April 30, 2014, FTA published a document in the Federal Register requesting comment on its proposed vision for the interim training program. A number of the proposed requirements for the interim training program were based partly on recommendations provided by commenters to the ANPRM (see 79 FR 24363). FTA evaluated comments received in response to the document and promulgated the final interim training program requirements in a Federal Register document dated February 27, 2015 (see 80 FR 10619).

    On December 3, 2015, FTA published a Federal Register document proposing to adopt the interim training program as the requirements for the PTSCTP (see 80 FR 75639). FTA reviewed comments to the NPRM and with this document promulgates the PTSCTP rule as 49 CFR part 672. This rule primarily applies to recipients of Chapter 53 funding; however, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), the SSOA training requirements listed in Appendix A also apply to FTA personnel and contractors that conduct safety audits and examinations of rail transit systems.

    III. Summary of NPRM Comments and FTA Responses

    FTA proposed to utilize the interim training program requirements as the foundation for the PTSCTP. Similar to the interim training program, FTA proposed that the initial focus of the PTSCTP should be on enhancing the technical proficiency of safety oversight professionals in the rail transit industry. However, recognizing that safety is a priority for all public transit providers, safety oversight personnel of other modes of public transportation were encouraged to participate voluntarily. For that reason, FTA proposed that the initial mandatory PTSCTP requirements provide safety management system and technical training for Federal and SSOA personnel and their contractors, and rail transit agency personnel directly responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems. Safety oversight personnel of recipients such as State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and bus transit providers would be voluntary participants.

    Nineteen commenters responded to the NPRM as follows: Seven (7) public transportation agencies; three (3) State Safety Oversight Agencies; one (1) member of the public; one (1) Federal safety agency; two (2) national safety associations; two (2) national public transportation associations; two (2) State Department of Transportations (DOTs); and, one (1) letter representing five (5) State DOTs. FTA reviewed all comments and noted that only one commenter provided remarks that were not responsive to the scope of the NPRM. Following is a summary of the comments received and FTA's responses.

    Section 672.1 Purpose

    FTA proposed to implement 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), by establishing a uniform curriculum of safety certification training to enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems not subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency. FTA also noted that the rule would not preempt a State from implementing its own safety certification training requirements for public transportation systems subject to its jurisdiction.

    A commenter to this section expressed appreciation for FTA's effort to adopt a uniform training curriculum and establish guidelines for all individuals who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation agencies. Another commenter noted that FTA's framework provides a training standard for system safety and ensures a basic level of competency in SMS across the public transportation industry.

    FTA Response: Upon review, FTA determined the proposed text requires clarification and is revising the text of paragraph (a) to include reference to personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation agencies in this section. Additionally, the phrase “not subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency” that was proposed in the NPRM is not included in the final rule because the definition for “public transportation agency” indicates this exception. The remainder of the proposed text is included in the final rule.

    Section 672.3 Scope and Applicability

    FTA proposed that in general, the rule would apply to all recipients of Federal public transportation funding under Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States Code. FTA noted, however, in order to manage Federal and local resources, the initial mandatory requirements would apply to SSOA personnel and contractors conducting safety audits and examinations, as well as Rail Transit Agency (RTA) personnel directly responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems not subject to the requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration. All other recipients of Chapter 53 funding would be able to participate voluntarily in the PTSCTP.

    In response to the NPRM, one commenter disagreed with FTA's approach and recommended that both rail and bus transit system personnel be required participants in the PTSCTP. The commenter noted that motor vehicle crashes are the second-leading cause of unintentional death in the United States. The commenter stated that bus operations would benefit from defensive driving training as well as SMS and other specific safety training.

    Conversely, commenters affiliated with State DOTs and small bus transit providers agreed that FTA should not require safety oversight personnel from these entities to be mandatory participants. Many of these commenters referred to the excellent safety record of bus transit providers to support the exclusion of these entities from mandatory PTSCTP participation. The commenters stated that FTA should limit regulatory burdens on States and subrecipient transit agencies that receive funding for rural transit. Several commenters indicated that the final rule should expressly affirm that it does not apply to bus service providers other than on a voluntary basis.

    A few commenters indicated that the rule should be revised to include FTA personnel and its contractors that conduct safety audits and examinations as mandatory participants. These commenters noted that FTA should be subject to the same training requirements as SSOA employees and contractors.

    FTA Response: FTA continues to believe the initial focus of the PTSCTP should be on rail public transit providers and the Federal and State personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations. As noted in the preamble of the ANPRM published in 2013, the intent is to initially focus regulatory efforts on those responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems. FTA adopted this approach because the increased potential for catastrophic accidents, loss of life, and property damage associated with rail transit warranted the most immediate attention (see 78 FR 61252).

    FTA reiterates that although the initial regulatory focus is primarily on rail safety, safety in the bus transit industry will not be ignored. In addition, FTA continues to expand resources and partner with groups that promote bus safety. Recognizing that resources must be expended judiciously and enforcement efforts must be prioritized, FTA believes the current safety environment within the bus transit industry supports the option for voluntary participation in FTA's safety training program.

    However, it is important to note that FTA is developing a more systematic safety reporting regime for the public transit industry. FTA is also increasing its capability for reviewing and analyzing safety data and trends across the industry. Should analysis of safety data and trends indicate increased safety risk in the bus transit industry, FTA retains authority to implement mandatory training requirements for bus transit safety oversight personnel.

    In response to commenters who indicated this rule should apply also to FTA personnel conducting safety audits and examinations, FTA notes this rulemaking applies specifically to recipients of Federal transit funds under Chapter 53, Title 49 of the United States Code. However, FTA agrees that FTA personnel and contractors should observe the same training requirements as SSOA personnel and contractors. Accordingly, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), this final rule requires FTA safety oversight personnel and contractors that conduct safety audits and examinations of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems to adhere to the same SSOA training courses noted in Appendix A. For the reasons herein, the text proposed in the NPRM is included in the final rule with clarifying edits. In paragraph (b), the phrase “that are not subject to the requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)” was removed because the definition of “rail fixed guideway public transportation systems” includes the statement that such systems are not subject to FRA's jurisdiction. The text of paragraphs (a) and (c) are included in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM.

    Section 672.5 Definitions

    This section proposed definitions for some key terms in the rule. Many of the terms carry the same or similar meaning as used in other FTA documents. Additionally, some new terms were proposed with definitions consistent with common use.

    Seven commenters responded to this section. One commenter stated that the term “contractor” should be revised to include RTA contractors that implement the RTA's safety program. Another commenter indicated the definition should be broadened to include all those who provide contracted services, supplies, or equipment to FTA recipients. Yet another commenter indicated the definition should be revised to include individuals and entities that perform safety-related tasks for an RTA through contract or other agreement.

    Two commenters indicated the terms “safety audit” and “safety examination” required clarification. One questioned whether there is a practical difference between an examination conducted as part of the audit and the analysis of acts performed in conjunction with the examination. The other commenter indicated the definition for both terms require more specificity in order to distinguish between the activities associated with the terms and clarify who performs an examination.

    A commenter indicated that the definition for “designated personnel” should be revised to include FTA safety oversight personnel and contractors in order to make them subject to this rule. Other commenters indicated that FTA needed to provide more clarity regarding the definition for “directly responsible for safety oversight” relative to RTA designated personnel. Another commenter suggested that the definition for “State Safety Oversight Agency” should not include reference to 49 CFR part 659 since that rule is set to expire.

    FTA Response: FTA believes the definition for “contractor” proposed in the NPRM sufficiently describes entities that provide safety audit and examination services to FTA and SSOAs. However, FTA agrees with commenters who indicated the definition should be amended to include contractors that provide services to public transportation agencies. FTA also amended section 672.13 to include RTA contractors.

    With regard to commenters who recommended revising the definition for “designated personnel” to include FTA personnel and contractor support, as noted earlier, this rule generally applies to FTA recipients; therefore, FTA personnel and contractors are not included in this definition. However, as noted with the “contractor” definition, subparagraph (1) of this definition is revised to also include contractors that provide safety oversight services to rail transit agencies.

    FTA concurs with commenters regarding the definition for “directly responsible for safety oversight.” For clarity, FTA is revising the definition of the term relative to section 672.13(a), in recognition that RTA safety oversight personnel are already quite familiar with the safety oversight program requirements pursuant to 49 CFR part 659.

    With regard to the terms “safety audit” and “safety examination”, FTA agrees with those commenters who indicated the proposed definition for both terms should be reconciled. The terms are not unknown nor uncommon to those responsible for safety oversight of RTA systems. FTA, SSOA, and RTA personnel are familiar with activities associated with safety audits and examinations as the terms relate to 49 CFR part 659 requirements, as well as the new SSO program rule at 49 CFR part 674. Further, it is unreasonable to interpret the term “examination” as it appears 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) to refer to anything other than examinations related to the safety of public transportation systems. Therefore, to remain consistent with the terms as they appear in statute, the term safety audit will be included in the final rule but the term “safety examination” will be modified to “examination” to align with the definition as it appears in 49 CFR 670.5. It is also noted that safety audits and examinations will generally be conducted by Federal and/or State personnel and contractors.

    Lastly, FTA agrees in part with the commenter who suggested the definition of “State Safety Oversight Agency” should be revised in reference to 49 CFR part 659. FTA notes 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(2) provides an RTA's System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) developed pursuant to 49 CFR part 659 shall remain in effect until FTA publishes a final rule for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. SSOAs will continue to oversee RTAs' SSPPs until the RTAs are required to adopt Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans in compliance with the future final rulemaking under 49 U.S.C. 5329(d). In recognition of this fact, this definition is revised in the final rule to include reference to the new rule at 49 CFR part 674, as well as 49 CFR part 659. The remaining definitions proposed in the NPRM are included in this rule with minor edits to certain terms to ensure consistency with other FTA safety rulemakings.

    Section 672.11 Designated Personnel Who Conduct Safety Audits and Examinations

    FTA proposed that the SSOA identify personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of the RTA(s) subject to its jurisdiction. In general, those identified would be SSOA employees and contractors whose duties include on-site safety audits and examinations of rail public transportation systems. FTA proposed this would include the SSOA managers and supervisors with direct authority over such SSOA personnel.

    FTA proposed that once identified, designated personnel would have 3 years to complete the applicable PTSCTP training requirements. FTA also proposed that designated personnel would be required to complete at least one hour of refresher training every 2 years after completing the initial mandatory training. FTA further proposed that the SSOA would have discretion to determine the subject area and duration for such training. FTA also proposed that the interim training program requirements become the initial training requirements for this rule. The interim requirements were republished as Section IV of the NPRM. However, FTA did not seek comment on the curriculum of the interim training program since it was developed through public notice and comment and effective only since May 28, 2015.

    Five commenters responded to this section. One commenter indicated that State personnel, such as commissioners and directors, should not be required to participate in the PTSCTP requirements. The commenter stated that these individuals do not actually conduct safety audits and examinations of the rail transit systems under their jurisdiction. Other commenters indicated that FTA personnel and contractors should be included as designated personnel.

    Regarding refresher training, several commenters felt the two-year interval for refresher training was sufficient. However, one commenter disagreed with the two-year timeframe, indicating that more robust refresher training should be required annually with a minimum requirement of at least four hours of training. The commenter also stated that the initial timeframe for completing PTSCTP requirements should be less than the three years FTA proposed. One commenter recommended that FTA be more specific as to the required elements for refresher training. Another commenter stated that FTA should require at least one class of refresher training every two years without identifying a time limit for the class. Yet another commenter stated that refresher training should at minimum include the “technical training component” and “knowledge of agency” elements outlined in Section IV of the NPRM.

    FTA Response: In general, FTA believes those with direct management and supervisory responsibility of SSOA personnel and contractors that conduct safety audits and examinations should be subject to the PTSCTP training requirements. However, as indicated by a commenter, there are SSOA management personnel who do not directly oversee SSOA personnel and contractors. Conversely, there are managers and supervisors who do. In either case, FTA recognizes an SSOA is better situated to determine which managers and supervisors require technical knowledge or perform functions identified in the technical training plan each SSOA is required to develop to comport with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(E). For example, knowledge of railroad components is required only by those individuals actually conducting the examinations and audits of those specific railroad components, but not necessarily knowledge required of SSOA managers.

    In short, some SSOA managers and supervisors will not be subject to PTSCTP requirements; however, those with direct supervisory responsibility of SSOA personnel and contractors subject to this part should share a common framework for understanding issues of risk and mitigation. For that reason, these managers and supervisors should at minimum undertake the SMS and TSSP curriculum identified in Appendix A. As indicated earlier, the SSOA will consult with FTA as it develops its technical training plan. This consultation should assist the SSOA with determining which of its personnel and contractor support should participate in the PTSCTP. However, FTA does not expect directors or commissioners, or similar State DOT personnel not involved in the day-to-day operations of an SSOA to be identified as designated personnel.

    In response to comments suggesting the proposed three-year timeframe for completing the initial PTSCTP requirements is too long, FTA notes that RTAs and SSOAs already engage in significant safety training including the voluntary TSSP which underpins the PTSCTP requirements. FTA disagrees that the PTSCTP requirements should be completed in less than three years. FTA believes such a requirement would unduly burden recipients while not significantly contributing to public transportation safety. Furthermore, FTA notes that 49 U.S.C. 5329 provides additional tools that FTA can utilize if it finds that targeted training or remedial action is required immediately.

    In response to comments regarding proposed refresher training requirements, from the onset FTA has stated its intent to take a comprehensive approach to safety training requirements. FTA recognizes there will be safety training requirements in other rules FTA is implementing for the National Public Transportation Safety Program (National Safety Program) which may apply also to some PTSCTP participants. FTA continues to believe that refresher training should be relevant to a recipient's specific circumstances and the recipient is in the best position to determine the subject matter and timeframe allotted for such training. In addition, FTA will provide guidance to assist recipients with identifying relevant subject matter for safety oversight refresher training.

    FTA believes the proposed requirements are sufficient and that a one-year training completion requirement or annual refresher training requirement would not provide significant value considering other safety training initiatives will be occurring during the same timeframe. For these reasons, the proposed rule text is included in the final rule except FTA omitted paragraph (c), which provided that the Reference Document was available on the FTA website. The training curriculum and requirements are now found in Appendix A to this rule.

    Section 672.13 Designated Personnel of Public Transportation Agencies

    In the NPRM, FTA proposed that a recipient be required to identify its personnel whose job function is “directly responsible for safety oversight” of the public transportation system. FTA noted that the unique organizational framework of public transit systems does not reasonably allow for uniform designation of positions or functions that are “directly responsible for safety oversight.”

    FTA stated that once identified, designated personnel would have three years to complete the applicable training for the PTSCTP. FTA also proposed that designated personnel would be required to complete at least one hour of refresher training every two years following the completion of the initial PTSCTP requirements. FTA further stated that RTA personnel would be mandatory participants while State DOT and bus transit system personnel would be voluntary participants. All recipients would have discretion to determine the subject area and time for biannual refresher training. Seven commenters provided responses to this section. In general, commenters responded to FTA's proposed timeframe for completing the PTSCTP requirements; however, two commenters indicated they were unable to locate the specific requirements of the Reference Document.

    One commenter stated that employees of rail systems should be required to meet the training requirements as soon as possible in order to ensure the safest transit operations for passengers. Several other commenters indicated that the three-year period for completing the required training should be extended because of potential scheduling conflicts. The commenters noted that FTA's course availability is not always conducive to transit personnel being able to attend the training. Some commenters also indicated that there may be instances where the course location could interfere with attendance. One commenter suggested that FTA provide its training schedule as far in advance as possible in order to assist recipients with minimizing travel costs. The commenter also recommended that FTA increase the number of online courses.

    One commenter indicated that FTA should not require the Transit System Security (TSS) course as a mandatory component of the PTSCTP curriculum since security matters are not generally under the purview of safety oversight personnel. Two commenters noted that the proposed rule required rail transit agencies to provide technical training to SSOA personnel and suggested that FTA instead develop specific rail transit technical training courses.

    Regarding the requirement to identify personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight, one commenter recommended that such personnel be limited to policymaking officials with broad safety accountabilities, rather than each employee who has a function or duty specific to an agency's safety plan. The commenter suggested that the rule apply only to those individuals who are accountable for the overall development, implementation, and review of the agency's safety program. Another commenter indicated that FTA use an approach in which it amplifies an SMS model where implementation of the agency safety plan is the shared responsibility of every position within the system (i.e., safety, operations, maintenance, human resources, training, and administration). The commenter further suggested that FTA provide guidance, or identify criteria to assist agencies with objectively identifying staff subject to the PTSCTP requirements.

    FTA Response: As noted in response to the section above, FTA disagrees with commenters who suggested that three years is not enough time to complete the required training. FTA has no indication that the current level of course offerings will not support completion of the requirements within three years. Review of the registration data website for interim training program registration indicates a significant number of those enrolling in the PTSCTP have already completed all, or some portion of the required TSSP component of the certificate program. However, FTA is providing additional course delivery dates to alleviate the potential burden due to the perceived lack of availability.

    To facilitate course availability and predictability, FTA will continue to expand its capacity for delivering the PTSCTP curriculum at sites around the country and publish schedules as early as possible. Where appropriate, FTA will also work on expanding web based courses to increase training opportunities and further reduce costs associated with the PTSCTP.

    Regarding SSOA training by RTAs, FTA did not propose a requirement for RTAs to provide technical training to SSOA personnel. However, FTA encourages SSOAs and RTAs to engage in joint training as much as practicable. This collaboration will only serve to promote a common framework of knowledge and improve communication between the RTA and the State regulator. Any training agreements between SSOAs and RTAs will be developed between the respective parties. If an RTA incurs additional expenses when including SSOA personnel with its training, then the parties can negotiate reimbursement for such expenses since SSOA training is an eligible expenditure of 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) grant funds.

    FTA disagrees with commenters who suggested that FTA identify designated personnel for public transportation agencies. As commenters indicated in response to question 52 of the ANPRM that preceded the NPRM to this rule, each agency has its specific organizational construct and assignment of safety oversight functions. FTA continues to believe that each agency should have discretion to determine which functions and positions are directly responsible for safety oversight of the agency. However, FTA will provide guidance to assist RTAs with objectively identifying such personnel.

    FTA agrees with commenters who indicated that employees who are in a position to be accountable for the development, implementation, and review of the agency's safety program should participate in the PTSCTP. This would also include RTA contractors. But the designation should not be limited only to personnel with management responsibility for the agency's safety plan. The designation should also include staff with primary responsibility for developing, implementing, and monitoring the agency's safety plan, as well as personnel who implement and execute SSOA requirements at the RTA. Depending on the size and organizational framework of the agency, this could be a few personnel or a sizable office or branch. The following guidance is provided to assist RTAs with identifying designated personnel:

    SSOA's Program Standard—Processes and procedures an RTA must have in place to comply with the standard: Who at the RTA is responsible for developing, implementing or maintaining the following elements of the program standard?

    (1) Program management;

    (2) Program standard development;

    (3) Program policy and objectives;

    (4) Oversight of the agency safety plans and internal safety reviews (who will respond to the SSOA if the SSOA determines the plans are inadequate?);

    (5) Triennial SSOA audits of Rail Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (who will participate in the audit process and follow up on any findings or recommendations?);

    (6) Accident notification (who is responsible for making appropriate notifications to FTA, SSOAs or when applicable FRA?);

    (7) Investigations (who will conduct internal accident investigations or coordinate RTA investigations in accordance with the SSO program standard and any agreements in effect?), (if the RTA does not agree with elements of an SSOA report, who will submit a written dissent from the report?);

    (8) Corrective action plans (CAPs) (who is responsible for developing and carrying out the CAPs required by the SSOA?), (who will manage an issued CAP, identifying steps to minimize, control, correct, or eliminate the risks and hazards identified by the CAP, the schedule for taking those actions, and the individuals responsible for taking those actions?), (who will periodically report to the SSOA on its progress in carrying out the CAP?), (who will collect, track, and analyze data on occurrences to develop leading indicators, to prevent the likelihood of future events, and to inform the practice of SMS across the RTA?).

    FTA recognizes recipients may have questions as to which positions or functions should be designated as PTSCTP participants. Recipients may contact FTA via email at [email protected] for assistance.

    For the reasons herein, proposed paragraph (a) is revised to include RTA contractors and the phrase “not subject to the safety oversight of another Federal agency” is removed because the definition of “rail fixed guideway public transportation systems” includes the statement that such systems are not subject to FRA's jurisdiction. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are included in the final rule as proposed in the NPRM and proposed paragraph (d) is omitted now that the PTSCTP curriculum and training requirements are listed in Appendix A to this rule.

    Section 627.15 Evaluation of Prior Certification and Training

    In the NPRM, FTA acknowledged that participants who have completed safety training from entities other than FTA should be able to have that training reviewed to determine if it is equivalent to the competencies of the PTSCTP curriculum. To that end, FTA proposed that a participant provide official documentation to FTA from the organization that conducted the training. FTA stated that the documentation should indicate the date(s) and subject matter of the training. In addition, the participant would be required to provide a narrative summary of the training objectives and the competencies obtained as a result of the training.

    Six commenters responded to this section. In general, commenters agreed that FTA should review other safety training for PTSCTP equivalency. However, most did not agree with FTA's proposed process. Three commenters indicated that FTA should proactively evaluate training provided by other organizations. Commenters indicated the participant should not have to describe how the training meets the competency of the PTSCTP curriculum. One commenter recommended that FTA “grandfather” existing transit agency personnel who possess five years of experience executing the requirements of 49 CFR part 659. The commenter also stated that FTA should provide PTSCTP credit for personnel who possess a Certified Safety Professional credential/license. Another commenter suggested that FTA broadly and favorably consider equivalent training requests from those holding safety credentials, and degrees in safety. Lastly, one commenter noted that FTA should establish an objective measure for evaluating prior training and certification that is predictable, transparent, and fast.

    FTA Response: In general, FTA agrees with commenters who indicated there should be an expedited and transparent process for evaluating safety training provided by entities other than FTA. To that end, FTA continues to refine its process for evaluating a participant's prior safety training. At this time, FTA is not prepared to provide independent approval of prior safety training or safety professional certifications without the participant providing official documentation and describing how the training or designation meets the objectives of the specific requirements of the PTSCTP. As the training program matures, FTA anticipates that it will offer a list of courses and training that meet the PTSCTP requirements. Accordingly, the final rule includes the text as proposed in the NPRM.

    Section 672.21 Records

    In the NPRM, FTA noted that an essential requirement of any training program is the maintenance of adequate records of training. To that end, FTA proposed to maintain an electronic record of each PTSCTP participant via its online enrollment process. However, FTA stated that the recipient would be required to ensure that its personnel periodically update their information with his or her course completion information. Designated personnel can enroll for the program and update their individual training records as they complete the applicable training requirements by following the instructions provided at FTA's training website. The following web address provides participants with enrollment and registration information: h ttps:/ / www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/safety-training. Further, each recipient will be responsible for maintaining an updated training record for its designated personnel.

    Additionally, FTA proposed that each SSOA maintain training records to document the technical training of its designated personnel for at least five years from the date the record is created. FTA noted this documentation would assist the SSOA in complying with the grant requirements in accordance 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(E) by documenting that SSOA personnel and contractors have received training to perform requisite safety oversight functions.

    FTA received three comments to this section. One commenter indicated this section should be revised to require FTA to also maintain records of its personnel and contractors that are subject to PTSCTP training requirements. Commenters agreed that designated personnel should enroll through FTA's safety database; however, two commenters indicated that FTA should be responsible for updating the participant's training completion information, not the recipient.

    One commenter stated that an SSOA should not be responsible for maintaining training records for its contractors. The commenter stated that SSOAs should be able to require a contractor to provide certification showing the contractor has completed the required training. The commenter suggested that once a contractor has provided the initial documentation, the SSOA should not be required to maintain their training records and the contractor should be responsible for maintaining their own records. The commenter also indicated that SSOA management should be able to rely on the FTA database to track the progress and status of SSOA personnel and contractors without the need for additional tracking mechanisms.

    FTA Response: FTA concurs with commenters who indicated that FTA should administer and maintain the records for PTSCTP participants. However, FTA's ability to access participant training records for the PTSCTP does not relieve a recipient of the responsibility for ensuring its designated personnel, including its contractors, are in compliance with this part. The recipient is in the best position to ensure its designated personnel are timely updating course completion information. Furthermore, this process will assist the recipient with certifying compliance with this part.

    FTA also agrees that a recipient, including an SSOA, should not be responsible for developing and maintaining training records for contractors. The contractor should be responsible for documenting and maintaining training records for its personnel. However, the recipient is responsible for ensuring its contractors comply with this part. To that end, a recipient may require its contractors to provide timely training documentation for contractor personnel subject to this part. To assist with grant documentation requirements, an SSOA should retain records of both its personnel and contractors in accordance with the timeframe prescribed in section 672.21(c) of this part.

    As noted previously, this rule does not apply to FTA personnel and contractors. However, training records for FTA personnel are maintained in accordance with Federal standards; therefore, FTA disagrees with commenters who indicated this section should be revised to apply to FTA. However, as indicated by commenters, paragraph (b) is amended by replacing the term “maintain” with the term “retain” in reference to an SSOA's responsibility for the training records of its contractors. Paragraph (a) is included in the final rule as proposed, but subparagraphs (c)(1) through (5) are not included because Appendix A provides information required for SSOA technical training records.

    Section 672.23 Availability of Records

    FTA proposed a requirement for the safekeeping and limited release of information maintained in accordance with the requirements of this part. FTA stated that information maintained in the training records should not be released without the consent of the participant for whom the record is maintained, except in limited circumstances. FTA further noted that a participant should receive a copy of his or her training records without cost to him or her upon request.

    In the NPRM, FTA stated that a recipient would be required to provide appropriate Federal and SSOA personnel access to all of the recipient's facilities where required training is conducted. In addition, the recipient would be required to grant access to all training records required to be maintained by this part to appropriate U.S. Department of Transportation personnel and appropriate State officials who are responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems. Additionally, a recipient would provide information regarding a participant's training when requested by the National Transportation Safety Board when such request is made as part of an accident investigation.

    FTA Response: FTA received no comments directly related to this section. Accordingly, the text proposed in the NPRM is included in the final rule.

    Section 672.31 Requirement To Certify Compliance

    FTA noted in the NPRM that recipients are required annually to certify their compliance with Federal grant requirements as a condition for receiving Federal funding. FTA proposed that recipients for whom the PTSCTP training requirements are mandatory should self-certify compliance with this part through the annual FTA certification and assurances process. FTA proposed that the recipient identify someone within the organization as authorized to certify compliance with this part on behalf of the recipient.

    One commenter to this section stated that FTA should annually certify its compliance with the PTSCTP requirements. Two other commenters indicated that similar to FTA's current annual certification and assurance process, a recipient's chief executive, such as the General Manager or equivalent, should be the official authorized to certify compliance. One of the commenters stated that a recipient's board of directors primarily performs policy-setting duties and should not be asked to certify safety compliance as it would be beyond their scope. Lastly, one commenter asked if the annual certification requirement also applied to SSOAs.

    FTA Response: The proposed rule stated that the recipient's governing body or authority should identify the person responsible for certifying the recipient's compliance with this part. FTA did not indicate that the governing body or chief executive would specifically have to certify the recipient's compliance with this part.

    Currently, recipients undergo FTA's annual self-certification and assurance process as a condition of receiving Federal transit funds administered through FTA (see https://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grantee-resources/certifications-and-assurances/certifications-assurances). Each recipient, including an SSOA, is required to annually certify compliance with numerous Federal requirements as a condition for receiving Chapter 53 funds. However, FTA is not a recipient; therefore, FTA is not included in the annual certification process. For recipients however, annual certification of compliance with this part will now be included with FTA's annual certifications and assurance. Consequently, a recipient is required to designate an authorized representative for the purpose of signing the certification on behalf of the recipient. Accordingly, the text proposed in the NPRM is included in the final rule.

    Section 672.33 Compliance as a Condition of Financial Assistance

    This section was proposed in the NPRM to outline options available to FTA when a recipient does not comply with the requirements of this part. This section indicated the Administrator's discretion to withhold Federal funds and provided a notice and comment period for recipients.

    Two commenters responded to this section. One commenter suggested the section be revised to include its applicability to SSOAs unless they are considered recipients. The other commenter indicated that absent clarification regarding how to identify designated personnel there is the possibility for an uneven identification of personnel across different agencies which could lead to a situation, where in hindsight, the Administrator may decide that a recipient has failed to comply with the requirements.

    FTA Response: FTA has reviewed this section in conjunction with the provisions of the Public Transportation Safety Program Safety Program (see 49 CFR part 670). FTA has determined that the provisions therein provide a recipient with sufficient notice and due process regarding the Administrator's authority and enforcement actions for noncompliance with this part. Therefore, FTA is not including proposed section 672.33 in this final rule.

    Appendix A: Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program

    FTA proposed adopting the interim training program requirements listed in Section IV of the NPRM as the initial training requirements for the PTSCTP. FTA noted that the interim requirements were developed with public notice and comment and only became effective on May 28, 2015. For that reason, FTA only requested comments about the effectiveness of the curriculum and technical training requirements.

    A number of commenters addressed FTA's proposed implementation of the PTSCTP and its applicability which we have already discussed; however, one commenter directly addressed the effectiveness of the proposed curriculum. The commenter noted that FTA should not require the Transit System Security (TSS) course as a mandatory component of the PTSCTP curriculum since security matters are not generally under the purview of safety oversight personnel.

    FTA Response: FTA agrees with the commenter and has revised the PTSCTP curriculum so that the TSS course is no longer a required component. FTA recognizes the value of the TSS course and will continue to offer it, but concurs that security is not within the general scope of training required to implement 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) safety oversight requirements. Additionally, FTA has determined that the course objectives for the 2-hour online “SMS Gap course” training are now included in the online “SMS Awareness” course and the “SMS Principles for Transit” course; therefore, it is no longer a requirement.

    For clarity, FTA is renaming the “SMS Principles for Rail Transit” to “SMS Principles for Transit” in order to reflect its broader applicability across the industry. In addition, the “SMS Principles for SSO Programs” course is currently under development and is not expected to be available by the effective date of this rule; therefore, participants will have three years from the course's date of availability to complete it. The curriculum for the PTSCTP is revised accordingly and appears as Appendix A to this part and is no longer referred to as the Reference Document as noted in the NPRM. FTA will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the PTSCTP requirements and should FTA determine revisions are warranted, FTA will seek public comment prior to doing so.

    IV. Revised Regulatory Evaluation

    Before MAP-21, FTA funded and supported a wide variety of safety training at no direct cost to the transit industry and participants engaged in the training on a voluntary basis. Subsequently, MAP-21 mandated that FTA develop an interim training safety certification program to enhance the technical qualifications of designated personnel directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems in advance of a final rule for the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program. FTA noted that the interim program requirements were a condition of receiving Federal grant funding under sections 5307, 5311, and 5329 of title 49, United States Code. Although the interim program was not promulgated as a rulemaking, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5334(k), FTA sought public comment on the interim provisions. It was noted that most of a participant's cost in the interim program would be an eligible expenditure of Federal financial assistance provided under sections 5307, 5311, and 5329 grants and no cost benefit analysis was conducted. FTA will now incorporate many components of the interim program in the final rule for the PTSCTP; however, with a lessened regulatory burden for required participants.

    The regulatory analyses below include the cost estimates for the final rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), using pre-MAP-21 estimates as the base line with revisions based on comments to the NPRM. The analysis also includes a deregulatory action cost estimate as required by Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), as the cost of the final rule is less than the cost of the interim rule.

    For the initial analysis to assess the costs for the PTSCTP, FTA first reviewed data from the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) the organization that provides FTA sponsored training for transit grantees and stakeholders. Using the TSI attendance data for the transit safety courses and knowledge of how SSOAs and rail transit agencies are organized, FTA developed a maximum and minimum number of personnel, to include employees and contractors that would be affected by the PTSCTP. FTA also reviewed the number of FTA personnel who participate in safety audits and examinations and determined the number of FTA personnel that would be required to undergo some level of training and certification.

    In developing annual costs for personnel that would attend the PTSCTP, FTA assumed a minimum and maximum case scenario. Under the minimum case scenario, it is assumed that no additional staff will take the TSSP other than the ones who are already doing so. The TSI data prior to MAP-21 shows that on average 250 individuals attended the four TSSP courses, ranging from 175 attendees for transit rail incident investigations to 345 attendees for the transit rail system safety course. Given the total number of transit and SSOA entities, there were between two to three individuals per agency on average attending the courses already. The only additional training taken would be for the Safety Management System curriculum. In addition, to meet the requirements of this rule, the agencies would need to apply for certification for courses attended at TSI or at another venue and to maintain records of the training completed. The cost of the additional effort is included below.

    The maximum case scenario assumes a higher number of attendees than the current practice and assumes no prior completion of safety training. This scenario is being presented to show the cost of the rule if the level of attendance increases due to the publication of this final rule and if the training already taken by individuals does not satisfy the TSSP course requirements under this final rule.

    FTA notes that this analysis includes only the costs that could be quantified, which are those costs associated with the training, certification and record keeping. It does not reflect costs associated with any additional countermeasures that better trained personnel might take to increase safety that they would not have identified prior to taking the training.

    The initial cost-benefit analysis was provided in the NPRM for public comment. Several commenters asked if additional Federal funding would be available to pay for the training and asked why additional funding is not available for RTAs, but available to SSOAs.

    FTA Response: Funding determinations are made by Congress through statutory parameters for Chapter 53 recipients, including RTAs. In this instance, the training costs associated with the PTSCTP are an eligible expense for the Federal grants available to RTAs. However, Congress has provided funding for the State Safety Oversight program to eliminate the conflict of interest inherent between SSOAs and RTAs when RTAs provide funding to SSOAs that provide oversight of these RTAs. Furthermore, the incremental cost per RTA is not expected to be significant considering many agency employees already undertake or have completed most of the required courses. Additionally, much of the new SMS training is available online at no additional monetary cost, except staff time.

    Several commenters noted the additional cost burden of travel to meet the training requirements if the courses are not available locally or online. One commenter indicated that its costs could be approximately $3,000 per course per employee to take the TSSP courses. It was also mentioned that employees will be away from their jobs to attend the training and this will result in loss of productivity. One commenter requested that costs be shown on a per capita basis for each recipient instead of the aggregate estimate reflected in the NPRM.

    FTA Response: FTA does not expect agencies to incur significant additional travel costs since much of the SMS training is available online and FTA plans to increase its capacity to deliver training locally, which will provide more opportunities to attend without incurring additional expenses. FTA will also make training schedules available earlier to support improved scheduling. However, recognizing there may be occasions where travel may be required; FTA is including estimated travel costs in the revised assumptions for this rule.

    Regarding cost estimates (labor cost), the assumptions herein reflect the loss of individual productivity to attend the training. It is anticipated that this cost will be regained through benefits from improved safety performance of the agencies. However, FTA notes that it is a challenge to project costs per recipient because each recipient is responsible for identifying which of its safety oversight personnel will be required participants. Furthermore, participants will have varying degrees of requirements to fulfill depending on their prior TSSP participation.

    To determine aggregate costs, FTA made the following revisions to its analysis. FTA is now using the hourly wage rate for a transit manager from the 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics to represent the average cost for personnel attending the training. The wage rate is adjusted to account for benefits and other employee compensation cost to reflect the full agency cost. The revised estimate also considers travel costs, assuming that 5 percent of required participants may not be able to attend courses locally. Furthermore, the Transit System Security (TSS) is eliminated, thus reducing the required training from 140 hours over three years to 104 hours over the same period. The TSS training remains available for participants, but is optional.

    Additionally, FTA has eliminated the 2-hour SMS Gap course, which reduces the number of SMS training from 41 hours over three years to 39 hours over the same period. This results in lower personnel training costs relative to PTSCTP compliance costs, but does not significantly reduce FTA's cost for providing the training.

    For the minimum case, we continued with the assumption that all designated personnel under this program had already completed the required courses and would require only the SMS portion of the curriculum. This assumption is supported given the popularity of the TSSP within the industry. It is supported further by the level of voluntary participation of transit industry personnel obtained from current graduation/attendance data at TSI.

    For the maximum case, we continue with the assumption that no one subject to the rule has a TSSP Certificate. In this case, all designated personnel would have to take and complete both the TSSP (minus the TSS course) and SMS coursework over the allotted three-year period. The table below shows the estimated counts used in our analysis. To simplify the analysis, we assume that the total designated personnel under this rule would undertake one-third of the total coursework each year. The required training would be completed over a period of three years.

    Estimated Universe of Potential SSOA, Rail Transit Agency, and FTA Personnel Minimum Maximum SSOA Personnel 70 120 Rail Transit Agency Personnel 200 340 FTA Personnel 40 40 Total 310 500

    Next, we determined the training by course that would be required of each person within the scope of the PTSCTP.

    TSSP Curriculum

    The TSSP consists of three courses.1 The Table below lists the courses and duration.

    1 The TSSP has two tracks, one for rail and one for bus-based transport. Since the PTSCTP is optional for bus-based transit we do not address those costs or benefits in the analysis.

    TSSP Coursework Required [Completed within a 3 year period] TSSP courses Hours Rail System Safety 36 Rail Incident Investigation 36 Transit System Security (TSS) (no longer mandatory but available as a voluntary course) 0 Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies 32 Total 104 SMS Curriculum

    The SMS curriculum consists of two in-person courses and two online training sessions. While SSO personnel will be required to now take 39 hours of total training, rail transit agency personnel will no longer be required to take the 2 hour SMS Gap course.

    SMS Coursework—In-Class and Online Required [Completed within a 3 year period] SMS courses Hours SMS Awareness 1 Safety Assurance 2 SMS Gap (no longer mandatory) 0 SMS Principles for Transit 20 SMS Principles for SSO Programs 16 Total 39 Wage Rates

    An average wage rate of $86.11 is assumed for those taking training under this program, based on 2016 Bureau of Labor Statistics data on average wages for transit managers, including an adjustment for benefits and other employee compensation costs.2 Using this wage assumption, we have revised Lower Bound and Upper Bound costs for attendance as depicted in the table below.

    2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics for Urban Transit Systems (485100), General and Operations Managers (11-1021), May 2014. The average hourly wage of $55.18 was multiplied by a benefits adjustment of 1.56.

    Annual Costs for Attendance of SSOA, Rail Transit Agency, and FTA Personnel Within a 3-Year Period Number of personnel Hourly
  • rate
  • Training time (hours) Annual attendance
  • costs
  • (total costs divided by 3)
  • Lower Bound Mandatory Cost/Year 310 $86.11 39 SSOA-FTA, 23 RTA $255,174 Upper Bound Mandatory Cost/Year 500 86.11 143 SSOA-FTA, 127 RTA
  • 120
  • 1,896,156

    In addition to the training requirements for certification, RTA personnel are required to attend one hour of training every two years to maintain the certification of their own choosing. This would add an ongoing annual cost of $13,347 for the minimum case scenario and just over $21,527 for the maximum case scenario.

    Travel Costs

    To allow for situations where staff are unable to attend local training, travel costs are estimated. Based on current air and hotel rates, and hourly wage rate of $86.11, transportation cost of $600 and lodging and meals of $250 per day and travel time cost of $690 for eight hours of travel time is estimated. It is unknown how many participants would need to travel to attend training. However, training is frequently provided by FTA across the country and agencies have three years in which to complete the training; therefore, only a small percentage are expected to travel. FTA estimated the cost assuming that only 5 percent of the required participants may travel to another location to attend a course out of state. The table below shows the annual travel costs for attending safety training courses.

    Annual Travel Cost to Attend the Training Personnel required to travel to attend training Number of personnel Travel cost per person Total annual travel cost Lower Bound (5%) 4 $4,078 $18,282 Upper Bound (5%) 8 11,694 89,852 Administrative Costs

    To comply with the requirements of the final rule, SSOAs and RTAs will incur time to designate appropriate staff for training; seek evaluation for safety training previously taken to ensure compliance with FTA requirements; keep records of training completed and ensure certification. The total annual costs of these activities are estimated to be $212,735. The same cost estimate is applied to the lower and upper bound, although the cost would be higher for the lower bound since the course evaluation will not be needed if all personnel attend the new training, as assumed for the upper bound estimates.

    Next, we assessed costs associated with developing, managing, and administering the coursework for the PTSCTP. First, we reviewed the course catalog for TSI and determined the percentage of courses required by the PTSCTP of the total courses offered—a little more than one-fourth (six courses plus three online courses out of 21 total courses or about 29 percent) of the total course offerings would be required of the combined TSSP/SMS training under this rule. Furthermore, of the total days of coursework offered by TSI, 30 percent were attributable to the TSSP/SMS coursework. To be conservative, we used a 30 percent weighting for allocating fixed costs and allocated full costs where we were able to identify costs resulting from the TSSP and/or SMS training components. Using data from FTA's budget for TSI, the cost for the administration of courses, contract costs, and costs for the development of new coursework, we developed the program costs. We factored no facility costs as regional transit agencies or FTA Regional Offices host courses. Lastly, no tuition fees are associated with taking the coursework for public agency employees, other than a small fee for course materials.

    The total cost for FTA to deliver the courses required under PTSTCP was about $1.4 million. However, since the TSSP training was previously provided prior to MAP-21, this cost is excluded from estimating the incremental cost of this rule. SMS training courses have been more recently developed to support safety goals, thus that is the only cost included here.

    TSI Program Costs Associated With TSSP and SMS Coursework Federal Salaries and Benefits * $120,121 Contract Services $211,600 Equipment, Supplies, Other * 33,291 Travel (Other than Course Delivery) * 7,886 Course Delivery 186,744 Indirect at 19% 106,332 Total Program 665,974 * Weighted Cost Allocation.

    The total annual cost of providing the SMS training is estimated to be $665,974 per year. Table below shows the total annual cost of the final rule over the first three years.

    Total Annual Costs for the PTSCTP Over a 3 Year Certification Period SSOA and RTA costs TSI costs Total costs Aggregate COSTS MIN $486,191 $665,974 $1,152,166 Aggregate COSTS MAX 2,198,743 665,974 2,864,717

    After completing the required training over the three-year period, RTA staff are required to complete an hour of refresher training every two years. These costs will incur beyond the three-year period discussed above. Similarly, any new personnel joining the agencies would be required to complete the training. To estimate the cost of training for the new staff, we used the rate of separations published in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly report, Job Opening and Labor Turnover. Using the rate of separation (quits, layoffs and discharges) of 1.8 percent for State and local government employees, excluding education, over the period September 2016 to September 2017, we estimated the number of staff requiring training after the third year. The annual cost of the refresher training and the new personnel is about $34,000 for the minimum case and $83,000 for the maximum case beyond the first three years. Using a ten year period of analysis, the total present value cost of the final rule is $8.4 million at 7 percent discount rate for the minimum case scenario and $3.4 million at 7 percent discount rate for maximum scenario. At the 7 percent discount rate, the annualized costs are $0.48 million and $1.2 million for the minimum and maximum scenario. The annualized cost for the minimum and the maximum case, at 3 percent discount rate is $0.42 million and $1.03 million respectively.

    Potential Benefits

    Since the interim provisions have been in effect for only a short time, we were unable to generate any estimate of their benefits. Thus, to assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, we considered how the training required in this rulemaking could strengthen the State Safety Oversight program, since better trained personnel would be expected to take actions that are likely to lead to decreased safety risks.

    While the TSSP has been available for some time, it was an optional certification that many SSOA, rail, and bus safety oversight personnel sought out of self-initiative. With the delineation of a mandatory pool of safety oversight employees, FTA hopes to unify and harmonize the provision of safety-related activities across SSOAs and rail transit agencies. In this way, this pool of employees will gain knowledge to identify and control hazards with the ultimate goal of decreasing incidents. Additionally, FTA expects that the codification of the PTSCTP will help promote a safety culture within the transit industry. This safety culture should help instill a transit agency-wide appreciation for shared goals, shared beliefs, best practices, and positive and vigilant attitudes towards safety.

    It may be difficult to quantify the effects of a positive safety culture, as a safety culture will develop over time. Characteristics of a positive safety culture include: Actively seeking out information on hazards; employee training; information exchanges; and understanding that responsibility for safety is shared. While the returns on investment in training should be fairly quick, establishing, promoting, and increasing safety in an industry that is already very safe is difficult to predict with any certainty.

    Comparison of the Cost of the Final Rule With the Interim Provisions

    On February 27, 2015, FTA issued a notice of interim safety certification training program provisions for Federal and State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and their contractor support who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems not otherwise regulated by another Federal agency. The proposed final rule will replace the provisions outlined in the interim notice. The training program outlined in this final rule will eliminate two requirements; the Transit System Security course and the SMS Gap online course. Rail security is not under FTA's authority, so it is not a training requirement mandated by 49 U.S.C. 5329. The SMS Gap course requirement is eliminated because many of the elements of this course are included in the SMS Principles for Transit. This reduces the burden of the final rule compared to the interim provisions enacted in February 2015. The table below shows the annual cost of the Interim Rule and the Final rule.

    Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program—Hours and Cost Decrease Training requirements Interim rule Final rule Difference
  • between rules
  • Safety Management System (SMS) Gap Course (Hours) 3 4 41 39 −2 Transit System Security (TSS) Course (days) 5 140 104 −36 Total 181 143 −38 Minimum Case Scenario Present Value Cost (7%) $3,447,233 $3,395,753 −$51,480 Maximum Case Scenario Present Value Cost (7%) $10,022,279 $8,436,102 −$1,586,177 Minimum Case Scenario Mandatory Annualized Cost (7%) $490,808 $483,479 −$7,330 Maximum Case Scenario Annualized Cost ((7%)) $1,426,947 $1,201,111 −$225,836

    Over a ten-year period, the final rule reduces the cost of the rule by $51,480 at the minimum case scenario and $1.6 million at the maximum case scenario using a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost reductions of the final rule are $7,330 for the minimum case and $225,836 for the maximum case, using a 7 percent discount rate, resulting in a net benefit for the training participants. The reduced training requirements will not hinder the effectiveness of the safety training program since the participants will receive much of the relevant content through other courses or by other requirements, not covered under this rule certification requirements.

    3 FTA eliminated the “SMS Gap” course as part of the mandatory curriculum for the final rule since the “SMS Principles for Transit” course includes similar objectives.

    4 The number of hours of training for the SMS Principles for Rail Transit course (“SMS Principles for Transit” in final rule) was incorrectly cited in the interim rule as 16 hours instead of 20 hours, this has been corrected in the final rule.

    5 Based on public comment FTA eliminated the TSS course as part of the mandatory curriculum for the final rule.

    V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    This rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency rulemaking) and DOT's policies and procedures to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) which requires an agency to review regulations to assess the impact on small entities. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, FTA has evaluated the likely effects of the proposals set forth in this rule on small entities. This rule will apply to recipients of public transportation grants under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Section 5329(e)(6) permits recipients of rural and urbanized area formula funds to use Federal funds to cover up to 80 percent of the PTSCTP costs. Additionally, FTA believes many of the PTSCPT participants will be eligible to receive credit for prior safety training which will further reduce the cost and impact associated with this rulemaking. For these reasons, FTA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits—including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

    FTA has determined this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). FTA has determined that this rulemaking is not economically significant. The proposals set forth in this rulemaking will not result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The requirements set forth in the rulemaking will not adversely affect the economy, interfere with actions taken or planned by other agencies, or generally alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

    Executive Order 13771

    As indicated in the cost-benefit analysis above and the summary chart below, this final rule is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action because it reduces the cost of complying with FTA's Interim Safety Certification and Training Program (interim program) requirements promulgated in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2) (see 80 FR 10619).

    Training requirements Interim rule Final rule Difference
  • between rules
  • Safety Management System (SMS) Course (Hours) 6 7 41 39 −2 Transit Safety and Security (TSS) Course (days) 8 140 104 −36 Total 181 143 −38 Minimum Case Scenario Present Value Cost (7%) $3,447,233 $3,395,753 −$51,480 Maximum Case Scenario Present Value Cost (7%) $10,022,279 $8,436,102 −$1,586,177 Minimum Case Scenario Mandatory Annualized Cost (7%) $490,808 $483,479 −$7,330 Maximum Case Scenario Annualized Cost ((7%)) $1,426,947 $1,201,111 −$225,836
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    6 FTA eliminated the “SMS Gap” course as part of the mandatory curriculum for the final rule since the “SMS Principles for Transit” course includes similar objectives.

    7 The number of hours of training for the SMS Principles for Rail Transit course (“SMS Principles for Transit” in final rule) was incorrectly cited in the interim rule as 16 hours instead of 20 hours, this has been corrected in the final rule.

    8 Based on public comment FTA eliminated the TSS course as part of the mandatory curriculum for the final rule.

    This rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The cost of training to comply with this rule is an eligible expenditure of Federal financial assistance provided to recipients under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any one year.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities were applied during this rulemaking.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that this rulemaking would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also concluded that this rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; “PRA”) and the OMB regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FTA is seeking approval from OMB for the Information Collection Request abstracted below. In order to comply with the requirements to implement the PTSCTP in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), this rulemaking requires recipients to provide information to FTA regarding the participation of their respective designated personnel as abstracted below. Designated personnel would provide enrollment information, periodically update compliance with PTSCTP training requirements, and where applicable, submit supporting documentation of prior training for credit towards PTSCTP training requirements. All recipients of mandatory PTSCTP requirements would annually certify compliance with the PTSCTP requirements. Additionally, SSOAs would be required to develop annual technical training plans for FTA approval. The plans would support the SSOA requirement to demonstrate that applicable SSOA personnel are qualified to perform safety audits and examinations.

    The information collection would be different for each type of recipient (Federal government personnel, Federal contractors, SSOAs and their contractors, and rail transit agencies). Therefore, the paperwork burden would vary. For example, the burden on SSOAs would be proportionate to the number of rail transit agencies within that State, and the size and complexity of those rail transit systems. This would affect the number of personnel designated for participation. FTA proposes to bear the cost associated with the development and maintenance of the website.

    Type of Review: OMB Clearance. New information collection request.

    Respondents: Currently there are 30 States with 60 rail fixed guideway public transportation systems in engineering, construction, and operations. The PRA estimate is based on participation in the PTSCTP by a total of 30 States and 60 rail transit agencies. In addition, we estimate participation by 35-45 SSOA contractors and approximately 30 Federal personnel and contractors.

    Frequency: Information will be collected through the website on an ongoing basis throughout the year. Participants must complete training requirements within 3 years and refresher training every 2 years. Certification of compliance will be required annually.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: In the first year of the program, we estimate a total burden of between 5,209 (minimum) and 5,909 (maximum) hours, depending on how many individuals are required to participate. Annually, each SSOA would devote between 88-91 hours to information collection activities including the development and submission of training plans to FTA. SSOA contractors would devote approximately 140-180 hours to information collection activities. These activities would have a combined total of 2,780-2,920 hours, depending on how many individuals are required to participate. The mandatory participants affected by 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) and today's rulemaking include 60 rail fixed guideway public transportation systems which would spend an estimated annual total of between 2,060 (minimum) and 2,620 (maximum) hours on information collection activities in the first year, or approximately 34-44 hours each. Finally, FTA is expected to expend approximately 249 hours in furtherance of the PTSCTP in the first year, and Federal contractors will spend an estimated four (4) hours each, for a combined total of approximately 369 hours in the first year. For this rule, OMB has issued control number 2132-0578.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) requires Federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental effects of their proposed actions in the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. This rulemaking is categorically excluded under FTA's environmental impact procedure at 23 CFR 771.118(c)(4), pertaining to planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. FTA has determined that no unusual circumstances exist in this instance, and that a categorical exclusion is appropriate for this rulemaking.

    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.

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order 12898 directs every Federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The USDOT environmental justice initiatives accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected public in developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously within their communities without compromising safety or mobility. Additionally, FTA has issued a program circular addressing environmental justice in public transportation,C 4703.1, Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. This circular provides a framework for FTA grantees as they integrate principles of environmental justice into their transit decision-making processes. The Circular includes recommendations for State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public transportation systems on (1) How to fully engage environmental justice populations in the transportation decision-making process; (2) How to determine whether environmental justice populations would be subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of a public transportation project, policy, or activity; and (3) How to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FTA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13045. FTA certifies that this rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FTA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13175 and finds that the action will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; will not preempt tribal laws; and will not impose any new consultation requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FTA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13211 and has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order, given that the action 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.

    Privacy Act

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

    Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) as amended, which requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a public transportation safety certification training program for Federal and State employees, and other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems and employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out the general provisions of this statutory requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).

    Regulation Identification Number

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

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 672

    Mass transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    K. Jane Williams, Acting Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 5329(f), and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, FTA hereby amends Chapter VI of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 672 to read as follows: PART 672—PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY CERTIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 672.1 Purpose. 672.3 Scope and applicability. 672.5 Definitions. Subpart B—Training Requirements 672.11 Designated personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations. 672.13 Designated personnel of public transportation agencies. 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and training. Subpart C—Administrative Requirements 672.21 Records. 672.23 Availability of records. Subpart D—Compliance and Certification Requirements 672.31 Requirement to certify compliance. Appendix A to Part 672—Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 5329(c) and (f), and 49 CFR 1.91.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 672.1 Purpose.

    (a) This part implements a uniform safety certification training curriculum and requirements to enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems operated by public transportation agencies and those who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation agencies.

    (b) This part does not preempt any safety certification training requirements required by a State for public transportation agencies within its jurisdiction.

    § 672.3 Scope and applicability.

    (a) In general, this part applies to all recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.

    (b) The mandatory requirements of this part will apply only to State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and contractors that conduct safety audits and examinations of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, and designated personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for the safety oversight of a recipient's rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.

    (c) Other FTA recipients may participate voluntarily in accordance with this part.

    § 672.5 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    Administrator means the Federal Transit Administrator or the Administrator's designee.

    Contractor means an entity that performs tasks on behalf of FTA, a State Safety Oversight Agency, or public transportation agency through contract or other agreement.

    Designated personnel means:

    (1) Employees and contractors identified by a recipient whose job function is directly responsible for safety oversight of the public transportation system of the public transportation agency; or

    (2) Employees and contractors of a State Safety Oversight Agency whose job function requires them to conduct safety audits and examinations of the rail fixed guideway public transportation systems subject to the jurisdiction of the agency.

    Directly responsible for safety oversight means public transportation agency personnel whose primary job function includes the development, implementation and review of the agency's safety plan, and/or the SSOA requirements for the rail fixed guideway public transportation system pursuant to 49 CFR parts 659 or 674.

    Examination means a process for gathering or analyzing facts or information related to the safety of a public transportation system.

    FTA means the Federal Transit Administration.

    Public transportation agency means an entity that provides public transportation service as defined in 49 U.S.C. 5302 and that has one or more modes of service not subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency.

    Rail fixed guideway public transportation system means any fixed guideway system as defined in § 674.7 of this chapter.

    Recipient means a State or local governmental authority, or any other operator of a public transportation system receiving financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.

    Safety audit means a review or analysis of safety records and related materials, including, but not limited to, those related to financial accounts.

    State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.

    State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) means an agency established by a State that meets the requirements and performs the functions specified by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and the regulations set forth in 49 CFR parts 659 and 674.

    Subpart B—Training Requirements
    § 672.11 Designated personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations.

    (a) Each SSOA shall designate its personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, including appropriate managers and supervisors of such personnel, that must comply with the applicable training requirements of Appendix A to this part.

    (b) Designated personnel shall complete applicable training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training shall be completed every two (2) years. The SSOA shall determine refresher training requirements which must include, at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.

    § 672.13 Designated personnel of public transportation agencies.

    (a) Each recipient that operates a rail fixed guideway public transportation system shall designate its personnel and contractors who are directly responsible for safety oversight and ensure their compliance with the applicable training requirements set forth in Appendix A to this part.

    (b) Each recipient that operates a bus or other public transportation system not subject to the safety oversight of another Federal agency may designate its personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight to participate in the applicable training requirements as set forth in Appendix A to this part.

    (c) Personnel designated under paragraph (a) of this section shall complete applicable training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training shall be completed every two (2) years. The recipient shall determine refresher training requirements which must include, at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.

    § 672.15 Evaluation of prior certification and training.

    (a) Designated personnel subject to this part may request that FTA evaluate safety training or certification previously obtained from another entity to determine if the training satisfies an applicable training requirement of this part.

    (b) Designated personnel must provide FTA with an official transcript or certificate of the training, a description of the curriculum and competencies obtained, and a brief statement detailing how the training or certification satisfies the applicable requirements of this part.

    (c) FTA will evaluate the submission and determine if a training requirement of this part may be waived. If a waiver is granted, designated personnel are responsible for completing all other applicable requirements of this part.

    Subpart C—Administrative Requirements.
    § 672.21 Records.

    (a) General requirement. Each recipient shall ensure that its designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP. Each recipient shall ensure that designated personnel update their individual training record as he or she completes the applicable training requirements of this part.

    (b) SSOA requirement. Each SSOA shall retain a record of the technical training completed by its designated personnel in accordance with the technical training requirements of Appendix A to this part. Such records shall be retained by the SSOA for at least five (5) years from the date the record is created.

    § 672.23 Availability of records.

    (a) Except as required by law, or expressly authorized or required by this part, a recipient may not release information pertaining to designated personnel that is required by this part without the written consent of the designated personnel.

    (b) Designated personnel are entitled, upon written request to the recipient, to obtain copies of any records pertaining to his or her training required by this part. The recipient shall promptly provide the records requested by designated personnel and access shall not be contingent upon the recipient's receipt of payment for the production of such records.

    (c) A recipient shall permit access to all facilities utilized and records compiled in accordance with the requirements of this part to the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, or any State agency with jurisdiction over public transportation safety oversight of the recipient.

    (d) When requested by the National Transportation Safety Board as part of an accident investigation, a recipient shall disclose information related to the training of designated personnel.

    Subpart D—Compliance and Certification Requirements
    § 672.31 Requirement to certify compliance.

    (a) A recipient of FTA financial assistance described in § 672.3(b) shall annually certify compliance with this part in accordance with FTA's procedures for annual grant certification and assurances.

    (b) A certification must be authorized by the recipient's governing board or other authorizing official, and must be signed by a party specifically authorized to do so.

    Appendix A to Part 672—Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program A. Required Curriculum Over a Three-Year Period

    (1) FTA/SSOA personnel and contractor support, and public transportation agency personnel with direct responsibility for safety oversight of rail fixed guideway public transportation systems:

    (a) One (1) hour course on SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery (all required participants)

    (b) Two (2) hour courses on Safety Assurance—e-learning delivery (all required participants)

    (c) Twenty (20) hours on SMS Principles for Transit (all required participants)

    (d) Sixteen (16) hours on SMS Principles for SSO Programs (FTA/SSOA/contractor support personnel only)

    (e) TSSP curriculum (minus Transit System Security (TSS) course) (all required participants—credit will be provided if participant has a Course Completion Certificate of previously taken TSSP courses)

    (i) Rail System Safety (36 hours)

    (ii) Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies (32 hours)

    (iii) Rail Incident Investigation (36 hours)

    (2) FTA/SSOA/contractor support personnel (technical training component):

    (a) Each SSOA shall develop a technical training plan for designated personnel and contractor support personnel who perform safety audits and examinations. The SSOA will submit its proposed technical training plan to FTA for review and evaluation as part of the SSOA certification program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7). This review and approval process will support the consultation required between FTA and SSOAs regarding the staffing and qualification of the SSOAs' employees and other designated personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(D).

    (b) Recognizing that each rail fixed guideway public transportation system has unique characteristics, each SSOA will identify the tasks related to inspections, examinations, and audits, and all activities requiring sign-off, which must be performed by the SSOA to carry out its safety oversight requirements, and identify the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each task at that system. At a minimum, the technical training plan will describe the process for receiving technical training in the following competency areas appropriate to the specific rail fixed guideway public transportation system(s) for which safety audits and examinations are conducted:

    (i) Agency organizational structure

    (ii) System Safety Program Plan and Security Program Plan

    (iii) Knowledge of agency:

    (I) Territory and revenue service schedules

    (II) Current bulletins, general orders, and other associated directives that ensure safe operations

    (III) Operations and maintenance rule books

    (IV) Safety rules

    (V) Standard Operating Procedures

    (VI) Roadway Worker Protection

    (VII) Employee Hours of Service and Fatigue Management program

    (VIII) Employee Observation and Testing Program (Efficiency Testing)

    (IX) Employee training and certification requirements

    (X) Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records

    (XI) Track inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records

    (XII) Tunnels, bridges, and other structures inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records

    (XIII) Traction power (substation, overhead catenary system, and third rail), load dispatching, inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records

    (XIV) Signal and train control inspection and maintenance programs, schedules and records

    (c) The SSOA will determine the length of time for the technical training based on the skill level of the designated personnel relative to the applicable rail transit agency(s). FTA will provide a template as requested to assist the SSOA with preparing and monitoring its technical training plan and will provide technical assistance as requested. Each SSOA technical training plan that is submitted to FTA for review will:

    (i) Require designated personnel to successfully:

    (I) Complete training that covers the skills and knowledge needed to effectively perform the tasks.

    (II) Pass a written and/or oral examination covering the skills and knowledge required for the designated personnel to effectively perform his or her tasks.

    (III) Demonstrate hands-on capability to perform his or her tasks to the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA supervisor or designated instructor.

    (ii) Establish equivalencies or written and oral examinations to allow designated personnel to demonstrate that they possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.

    (iii) Require biennial refresher training to maintain technical skills and abilities which includes classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. Observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties may be used to meet the hands-on portion of this requirement, provided that such testing is documented.

    (iv) Require that training records be maintained to demonstrate the current qualification status of designated personnel assigned to carry out the oversight program. Records may be maintained either electronically or in writing and must be provided to FTA upon request.

    (v) Records must include the following information concerning each designated personnel:

    (I) Name;

    (II) The title and date each training course was completed and the proficiency test score(s) where applicable;

    (III) The content of each training course successfully completed;

    (IV) A description of the designated personnel's hands-on performance applying the skills and knowledge required to perform the tasks that the employee will be responsible for performing and the factual basis supporting the determination;

    (V) The tasks the designated personnel are deemed qualified to perform; and

    (VI) Provide the date that the designated personnel's status as qualified to perform the tasks expires, and the date in which biennial refresher training is due.

    (vi) Ensure the qualification of contractors performing oversight activities. SSOAs may use demonstrations, previous training and education, and written and oral examinations to determine if contractors possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.

    (vii) Periodically assess the effectiveness of the technical training. One method of validation and assessment could be through the use of efficiency tests or periodic review of employee performance.

    B. Voluntary Curriculum

    Bus transit system personnel with direct safety oversight responsibility and State DOTs overseeing safety programs for subrecipients:

    (a) SMS Awareness—e-learning delivery

    (b) Safety Assurance—e-learning delivery

    (c) SMS Principles for Transit

    (d) Courses offered through the TSSP Certificate (Bus)

    i. Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies

    ii. Transit Bus System Safety

    iii. Fundamentals of Bus Collision Investigation

    [FR Doc. 2018-15168 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    83 139 Thursday, July 19, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0368; Product Identifier 2018-NE-12-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines with a low pressure compressor (LPC) fan hub, part number (P/N) 51B821 or P/N 52B521, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by updated low cycle fatigue analysis techniques that indicate certain LPC fan hubs could crack prior to their published life limit. This proposed AD would require repetitive eddy current inspections (ECIs) and fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPIs) for cracks in certain LPC fan hubs and removal of hubs from service that fail inspection. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 4, 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 Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    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-2018-0368; 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 listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; fax: 781-238-7199; 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-2018-0368; Product Identifier 2018-NE-12-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

    We received information concerning an updated analysis by the engine manufacturer, which indicated certain triple-bore LPC fan hubs installed in high-thrust models of the PW4000-112″ series turbofan engine could crack prior to their published life limit. This proposed AD would add additional inspections of affected triple-bore LPC fan hubs until they are removed from service and replaced with a part eligible for installation. This condition, if not addressed, could result in fatigue cracking of the LPC fan hub, uncontained hub failure, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-351, dated February 22, 2018. This PW ASB describes procedures for performing LPC fan hub ECIs and FPIs. 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.

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed PW PW4000 Series 112 Inch Turbofan Engines Cleaning, Inspection and Repair (CIR) Manual, P/N 51A750, Chapter/Section 72-31-07, Inspection/Check-02, Revision No. 76, dated March 15, 2018. The CIR Manual contains additional information regarding FPI and ECI of the LPC fan hub.

    FAA's Determination

    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 in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require repetitive ECIs and FPIs of the LPC fan hub.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 32 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Pro-rated part cost 0 work-hours × $85 per hour = $0 $288,000 $288,000 $288,000 Inspection 40 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,400 0 3,400 108,800
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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): Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2018-0368; Product Identifier 2018-NE-12-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 4, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074D, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines with low-pressure compressor (LPC) fan hub, part number (P/N) 51B821 or P/N 52B521, installed.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by low cycle fatigue analysis techniques, updated by the engine manufacturer, which indicated certain LPC fan hubs could crack prior to their published life limit. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPC fan hub. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained hub release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) and eddy current inspection (ECI) of the LPC fan hub the next time the engine is separated at the M-flange and the LPC fan hub has accumulated 2,000 or more flight cycles since the last FPI and ECI.

    (2) Thereafter, perform an FPI and an ECI of the LPC fan hub every time the engine is separated at the M-flange and the LPC fan hub has accumulated 2,000 or more flight cycles since the last LPC fan hub ECI and FPI inspections.

    (3) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Step No. 11, in PW Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-351, dated February 22, 2018, to do the eddy current inspections.

    (4) If a crack is found during the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, remove the LPC fan hub from service before further flight and replace with a part eligible for installation.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7105; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-565-0140; fax: 860-565-5442. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 12, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15291 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0648; Product Identifier 2017-SW-087-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Leonardo S.p.A. (Leonardo) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This proposed AD would require replacing screws installed on the left and right main landing gear (MLG) shock absorber assembly. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that some screws may have been manufactured without meeting specifications. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address 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-2018-0648; 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 proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016-077, dated April 19, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Finmeccanica S.p.A. (previously Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters if equipped with kit “Increased Gross Weight 6800 kg” part number (P/N) 4G0000F00111 (kit). EASA advises of a manufacturing issue with the standard screws (P/N NAS1351-5H12P) installed on MLG shock absorber assembly P/N 1652B0000-01. According to EASA, a material analysis shows that the MLG shock absorber screws may have a lower fatigue life than the screws used during the certification fatigue tests. EASA states the affected MLG units have been identified by serial number. EASA also advises that this unsafe condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the MLG shock absorber, collapse or retraction of the MLG, and subsequent damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants.

    To correct this condition, the EASA AD requires replacing each standard screw with a new screw P/N 1652A0001-01 and re-identifying the serial number of each MLG shock absorber assembly that has the new screw installed, and prohibits installing any affected MLG shock absorber assembly unless the screw has been replaced.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-397, dated April 7, 2016, which contains procedures for replacing the standard screws installed on the left and right MLG assembly and for re-identifying the MLG shock absorber assembly P/N and the MLG assembly S/N.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require replacing each standard screw P/N NAS1351-5H12P with a screw P/N 1652A0001-01 and re-identifying the serial number of the MLG assembly within the following compliance times:

    • For MLG assemblies with 26,800 or more landings, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS).

    • For MLG assemblies with between 22,000 and 26,799 landings, within 300 hours TIS or before the MLG assembly accumulates 27,200 landings, whichever occurs first.

    • For MLG assemblies with less than 22,000 landings, within 1,200 hours TIS or before the MLG assembly accumulates 23,200 landings, whichever occurs first.

    This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an MLG assembly on any helicopter unless the screw has been replaced.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 111 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD, based on an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Replacing the screws on the left and right MLG assemblies would require about 16 work-hours and $200 for parts, for a total cost of $1,560 per helicopter and $173,160 for the U.S. fleet.

    According to Finmeccanica's service information, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Finmeccanica. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    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): Leonardo S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0648; Product Identifier 2017-SW-087-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, certificated in any category, with an Increased Gross Weight 6,800 Kg kit part number (P/N) 4G0000F00111, and with a main landing gear (MLG) assembly with a P/N and serial number (S/N) listed in Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD installed.

    EP19JY18.000 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an MLG shock absorber screw that does not meet specifications. This condition could result in failure of the MLG shock absorber, collapse or retraction of the MLG, and subsequent damage to the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within the following compliance times, replace each screw P/N NAS1351-5H12P installed on an MLG shock absorber with a screw P/N 1652A0001-01. Re-identify the MLG assembly using black permanent ink by marking an “R” at the end of the S/N of the MLG assembly and cover with a transparent coating. For purposes of this AD, a “landing” is counted any time the helicopter lifts off into the air and then lands again regardless of the duration of the landing and regardless of whether the engine is shut down:

    (i) For MLG assemblies with 26,800 or more landings, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS).

    (ii) For MLG assemblies with between 22,000 and 26,799 landings, within 300 hours TIS or before the MLG assembly accumulates 27,200 landings, whichever occurs first.

    (iii) For MLG assemblies with less than 22,000 landings, within 1,200 hours TIS or before the MLG assembly accumulates 23,200 landings, whichever occurs first.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an MLG assembly with a P/N and S/N listed in Table 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD on any helicopter unless the screw has been replaced and the MLG assembly re-identified as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

    (f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (h) Additional Information

    (1) Finmeccanica Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-397, dated April 7, 2016, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0077, dated April 19, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200 Landing Gear System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 9, 2018. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15304 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0647; Product Identifier 2017-SW-083-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429 helicopters. This proposed AD would revise the life limit for the nose landing gear (NLG) assembly. This proposed AD is prompted by revised airworthiness limitations determined by Bell. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these helicopters.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address 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-2018-0647; 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 proposed AD, the Transport Canada AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD No. CF-2016-07, dated March 4, 2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 429 helicopters with wheeled landing gear. Transport Canada advises that Bell has replaced the airworthiness limitations for the NLG main fitting to bell crank bolt part number (P/N) M084-20H125-101 and NLG main fitting P/N M084-20H011-107 with an airworthiness limitation for the next higher assembly, NLG assembly P/N 429-336-100-101. According to Transport Canada, the NLG assembly's life limit is reduced to 50,000 retirement index number (RIN) or 4,500 hours time-in-service (TIS). Transport Canada advises that failure to replace components prior to established airworthiness limitations could result in an unsafe condition.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin No. 429-15-24, Revision A, dated September 23, 2015, which specifies updating the Bell 429 maintenance manual with Revision 24 to incorporate the revised airworthiness limitations for the NLG assembly, NLG main fitting to bellcrank bolt, and the NLG main fitting.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would revise the life limit of the NLG assembly by requiring, before further flight, removing from service any NLG assembly P/N 429-336-100-101 that has reached or exceeded 4,500 hours TIS or 50,000 RIN. Thereafter, this proposed AD would require removing from service each NLG assembly P/N 429-336-100-101 before it accumulates 4,500 hours TIS or 50,000 RIN, whichever occurs first.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Transport Canada AD

    The Transport Canada AD applies to certain serial-numbered helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to all Bell Model 429 helicopters with the affected NLG assembly installed.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect less than 75 helicopters of U.S. Registry (as this proposed AD would not apply to Bell Model 429 helicopters with skid landing gear). At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, replacing a NLG assembly would require 10 work-hours, and required parts would cost $104,648, for a cost of $105,498 per helicopter and up to $7,912,350 for the U.S. fleet.

    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.

    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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    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): Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Docket No. FAA-2018-0647; Product Identifier 2017-SW-083-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters with a nose landing gear (NLG) assembly part number (P/N) 429-336-100-101 installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as fatigue failure of an NLG assembly, which could result in subsequent damage to and loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 17, 2018.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, remove from service any NLG assembly P/N 429-336-100-101 that has reached or exceeded 4,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 50,000 retirement index number (RIN). Thereafter, remove from service each NLG assembly P/N 429-336-100-101 before accumulating 4,500 hours TIS or 50,000 RIN, whichever occurs first. For purposes of this AD, for every normal retraction or extension of the wheeled landing gear system, add one RIN.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin No. 429-15-24, Revision A, dated September 23, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone (450) 437-2862 or (800) 363-8023; fax (450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No. CF-2016-07, dated March 4, 2016. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200 Nose Landing Gear.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 9, 2018. Lance T. Gant, Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15305 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA-2014-F-2307] Humic Product Trade Association; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; withdrawal of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive petition (FAP 2290) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of humate, fluvic acid, and humic substances as a source of iron in animal feed.

    DATES:

    The food additive petition published on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 422), was withdrawn on April 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts; and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-228), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6283, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a notice of petition published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 422), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 2290) had been filed by Humic Products Trade Assn., P.O. Box 963, Spring Green, WI 53588. The petition proposed to amend part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573), to provide for the safe use of humate, fluvic acid, and humic substances as a source of iron in animal feed. Humic Products Trade Assn., has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing in accordance with 21 CFR 571.7.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15394 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1926 [Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012] RIN 1218-AD07 Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration published its final rule for cranes and derricks in construction on August 9, 2010. The final rule set out new requirements to enhance worker safety around cranes and derricks. On October 7, 2010, the Association of American Railroads (“AAR”) filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging certain requirements affecting railroad roadway work. Subsequently OSHA and AAR reached a settlement agreement under which OSHA agreed to undertake rulemaking to propose expanding several exemptions and to issue clarifications affecting work on or along railroad tracks. These exemptions and clarifications, which would not apply to bridge work, would exempt entirely one type of railroad equipment from OSHA's crane standard; would exempt railroad equipment operators from the certification requirements in the standard; and would include several provisions relating to safety devices, work-area controls, out-of-level work, dragging loads sideways, equipment modifications, and manufacturer requirements. OSHA believes this proposal, if promulgated, would maintain safety and health protections for workers while reducing employers' compliance burdens.

    DATES:

    Submit comments to this proposed rule, public hearing requests, and other information no later than September 17, 2018. Each submission must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the date of submission.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, hearing requests, and other materials, identified with this docket, Docket No. OSHA-2015-0012, using any of the following methods:

    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing requests and other information, electronically via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for making electronic submissions.

    Facsimile: Commenters may fax submissions that are no longer than 10 pages in length, including any attachments, to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648. These submissions must include Docket No. OSHA-2015-0012 [RIN: 1218-AD07]. OSHA does not require hard copies of the faxed comments. Commenters must submit documents longer than 10 pages (e.g., supplemental attachments, comments, research studies, or journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must clearly identify the commenter's name, and the date, subject (Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work), and docket number (i.e., OSHA-2015-0012) of the submission so the Agency can attach them to the appropriate submission. See also Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger (courier service) below.

    Regular mail, express mail, hand (courier) delivery, or messenger service. Submit a copy of comments and any additional material (e.g., studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2015-0012, Technical Data Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350 (TDY number: (877) 889-5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier) service. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET.

    Information Collection Requirements. OSHA welcomes comments on the information collection requirements contained in this rule on the same basis as for any other aspect of the rule. Interested parties may also submit comments about the information collection requirements directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA (RIN 1218-AD07), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881, email: [email protected] See Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble for particular areas of interest.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name (OSHA), the title of the rulemaking (Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Exemption Expansions for Railroad Roadway Work), and Docket No. OSHA-2015-0012. OSHA places submissions, comments, and other materials, including any provided personal information, in the public record of this docket without revision. Submitted materials will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting materials that contain personal information (either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.

    OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this proposed rule, including whether these revisions will have any economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts on the regulated community.

    Docket: To read or download submissions or other materials in the public record for this docket (including material referenced in the preamble), go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the OSHA Docket Office by telephone or the address listed above. While the Agency lists all documents for this docket in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available through the website for reading or downloading. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance locating submissions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA Office of Communications, telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    General and Technical inquiries: Mr. Garvin Branch, Directorate of Construction, telephone: (202) 693-2020; email: [email protected]

    Copies of this Federal Register document and news releases: Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis V. Legal Considerations, Authority VI. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act VII. Federalism VIII. State-Plan States IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments XI. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health XII. Public Participation I. Executive Summary

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Association of American Railroads negotiated a settlement to resolve litigation following OSHA's issuance of its Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard in 2010. This rulemaking satisfies part of OSHA's obligations under that settlement. OSHA proposes to exempt entirely certain railroad “roadway maintenance machines” from the requirements of that standard, and to create limited exemptions for other equipment used by railroads for track-related construction activities other than bridge construction. New section § 1926.1442 would clarify that operators of the relevant equipment need not comply with the operator certification requirements in OSHA's standard. OSHA believes that these limited exemptions will maintain safety protections for workers.

    OSHA has estimated the cost and cost savings for this proposed rule. At a 3 percent discount rate over 10 years, there are net annual cost savings of $15.7 million per year, and at a discount rate of 7 percent there are net annual cost savings of $17.0 million per year. When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), the annualized cost savings of the proposed rule is $17.0 million with 7 percent discounting. This proposed rule is accordingly expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on OSHA's cost/cost savings estimates for this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    II. Background

    OSHA published its final rule for cranes and derricks in construction on August 9, 2010 (29 CFR 1926 Subpart CC, 75 FR 47906). The crane standard resulted from years of work by a negotiated rulemaking committee that drew from industry best practices to draft regulatory requirements to prevent crane tipovers, electrocution from crane contact with power lines, workers being struck by the equipment or loads, crane collapse because of improper assembly, and other hazards associated with the operation of cranes in construction work. The crane standard added many new provisions, such as requirements to ensure safe ground conditions underneath the equipment, mandatory safety devices, distance requirements from power lines, inspection procedures, workplace area controls to prevent workers from entering hazardous areas, and new operator certification requirements.

    On October 7, 2010, the Association of American Railroads and a number of individual railroads (hereafter collective referred to as “AAR”) filed a petition challenging the rule. That petition remains before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case No. 10-1386), but after AAR provided more background and additional information about existing practices in the railroad industry, the parties reached a settlement in which OSHA agreed to issue an interpretation of its standard as it relates to ground conditions for railroads 1 and to propose the revisions to the regulatory text of the crane standard included in this proposal (see Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012-0002). The settlement followed extensive discussions with AAR and officials from the Federal Railroad Administration and the principal labor organization representing affected employees, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. OSHA also reviewed the settlement with the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. In deciding to enter into the settlement, OSHA acknowledged the lack of a record of significant injuries or fatalities resulting from the use of cranes or derricks for railroad track construction and maintenance and the consensus between labor and management groups that the proposed exemptions and alternatives would continue practices generally accepted as safe in the railroad industry. The settlement was narrowly tailored to address the aspects of the railroad industry that differ significantly from the more typical construction work covered by the standard.

    1 See Nov. 14, 2014 letter to AAR Counsel Jill Hyman Kaplan, Esq., available at www.osha.gov.

    The proposed revisions include two groups of exemptions: One for certain equipment with low-hanging attachments used to perform track work, and a second for certain requirements applicable to all railroad machines used in track construction and covered by OSHA's standard. The settlement contains draft regulatory language, which forms the basis of this proposal, but OSHA did not commit to a specific final regulatory action as part of the settlement and seeks public comment on this proposal. AAR has agreed to move to dismiss its petition within seven days of OSHA's publication of a final rule addressing these issues.

    III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Standard

    OSHA has long classified work performed to place or repair significant sections of railroad track, ties, and roadbed as construction activity subject to OSHA's construction standards in 29 CFR part 1926.2 The railroad industry relies on a number of different pieces of equipment to deliver and position the ballast rock that supports the railroad ties, the ties that support the rail, and the rail itself. Most of this equipment falls within the scope of OSHA's Cranes and Derricks Standard in subpart CC because it is “power operated equipment” and includes some form of hoisting device that allows the equipment to be used to “hoist and lower and horizontally move a suspended load” (see 29 CFR 1926.1400(a)). Railroads also use the equipment to install railway signal posts and to keep the tracks and the areas immediately alongside the track free from debris and other impediments to trains.

    2 See, e.g., Sec'y of Labor v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (May 28, 1981), 9 OSHC Cas. (BNA) 1892, 1981 OSHD (CCH) P 25421, 1981 WL 18909; see also Memorandum for Regional Administrators, Construction vs. Maintenance, From James W. Stanley (August 11, 1994), available at www.osha.gov.

    The railroad industry classifies this equipment collectively as “roadway maintenance machines,” which are defined in Federal Railway Administration (FRA) regulations as devices “powered by any means of energy other than hand power . . . being used on or near railroad track for maintenance, repair, construction or inspection of track, bridges, roadway,3 signal, communications, or electric traction systems. Roadway maintenance machines may have road or rail wheels or may be stationary” (49 CFR 214.7). AAR provided examples of common forms of this equipment, with photos, in a memorandum to OSHA (see Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012-0006).

    3 The “roadway” referenced in this definition does not refer to a road over which cars or trucks would travel; within the railroad industry it refers to the area encompassing the tracks, track support, and nearby items that could foul the track (see, e.g., the definition of “roadway worker” in 49 CFR 214.7).

    A. Exemption for Flash-Butt Welding Trucks and Equipment With Similar Attachments

    Flash-butt welding trucks are roadway maintenance machines with low-hanging workhead attachments. These machines are equipped with an attachment designed to suspend and move a welding workhead low and close to the rails in order to weld precisely two sections of rail together. Other machines that would fall within this proposed exemption are similarly designed to suspend and move specific operation workheads low to the rails. This class of machines does not have any other hoisting device. AAR provided examples of these machines (see Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012-0008).

    Because these machines are not capable of raising and suspending the workhead more than a few feet above the ground or roadbed, and the weight and structure of the workhead does not appear to present any danger of equipment tipover at any point during the workhead's full range of motion, OSHA preliminarily accepts AAR's assertion that equipment in this class does not present the types of safety hazards that OSHA intended to address in its crane standard. Therefore, given that it does not appear to compromise worker safety, OSHA proposes to revise § 1926.1400(c) to expressly exempt flash-butt welding trucks and “other railroad roadway work machines equipped only with hoisting devices used to suspend and move their workhead assemblies low and close to the rails.” OSHA requests comment on this proposed exemption.

    B. New Section 29 CFR 1926.1442 To Address Railroad Equipment

    Existing section 1926.1442, which addresses severability, is currently the last section of the crane standard. OSHA proposes to re-designate the severability provision as § 1926.1443 to enable the addition of a new § 1926.1442 dedicated to the railroad roadway maintenance machines addressed in this proposed rulemaking.

    OSHA's crane standard, 1926 Subpart CC, is organized so that generalized requirements affecting cranes and derricks in construction come first in the subpart. The bulk of the standard is composed of these generalized requirements, such as those governing ground conditions; various assembly/disassembly requirements; safety devices and operational aids; crane/derrick operations; work area control; keeping clear of the load; and operator qualification and certification. Additional sections focus on specific types of equipment, such as tower cranes and overhead and gantry cranes, and small equipment with a rated hoisting/lifting capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. There are also railroad-specific exceptions and requirements in various sections.4

    4 Existing railroad provisions in the crane standard include exemptions from ground condition and inspection requirements as set forth in §§ 1926.1400(h), 1926.1402(f), and 1926.1412(d)(1)(x) and (d)(1)(xiii); restrictions on locomotive crane movements in § 1926.1417(z); and an exception from the signal transmission requirements in 1420(b)(2).

    Rather than insert various railroad roadway machine exceptions throughout Subpart CC, the proposal consolidates them into a single section (§ 1926.1442) for the convenience of affected parties and to maintain the organizational integrity of Subpart CC. As proposed, aside from the § 1926.1400(c)(18) exclusion for flash-butt welding trucks and similar equipment, § 1926.1442 would contain all the new proposed provisions addressed through the settlement, all of which are provisions with which OSHA preliminarily agrees.

    C. Scope of New § 1926.1442

    OSHA's proposed limited exemptions for railroads in § 1926.1442 would apply to work on the construction of railroad tracks and supporting structures (the railroad ties supporting the tracks, the ballast and road bed that support the track and ties, and the poles and other structures on which railroad signal devices and signage are mounted). AAR explained that these construction activities are typically performed using equipment created specifically for railway work or specially modified for that purpose (Docket ID: OSHA-2015-0012-0007). AAR also explained that this specialized equipment is not typically used for construction of buildings, retaining walls, fences, or platforms controlled by railroads, or for other more traditional types of construction work related to railroads. Rather, those traditional construction activities are often contracted out to construction firms and typically involve standard construction equipment. OSHA is not proposing any new or special treatment for equipment used to conduct these traditional construction activities that are not related to track work. OSHA is not aware of any need for additional exceptions, and OSHA is not aware of any significant differences in the hazards of using railroad equipment for these purposes than for similar projects in other industries.

    Proposed § 1926.1442 accomplishes the limitation in two ways. First, this new § 1926.1442(a) states that it only applies to equipment meeting the 49 CFR 214.7 definition of “Roadway Maintenance Machine,” which includes a functional component focused on track work (machines “being used on or near railroad track for maintenance, repair, construction or inspection of track, bridges, roadway, signal, communications, or electric traction systems”). Thus, a crane owned by a railroad would not meet the definition of a roadway maintenance machine when engaged in constructing a building or railway platform, but the same crane could later meet the definition if used to install railway track.

    Second, proposed § 1926.1442(a) explicitly excludes roadway maintenance machines engaged in bridge work from the limited exemptions in that section. The use of cranes and derricks on bridges exposes workers to the same hazards as in other construction work, and Subpart CC addresses those hazards without exceptions. Proposed § 1926.1442(a) makes clear that employers engaged in bridge work would still be required to comply with all of the applicable Subpart CC requirements for cranes or derricks used during that work even when using roadway maintenance machines. Worker safety remains paramount. Bridge construction work encompasses work on bridges supporting track over features such as gullies, highways, rivers, and walkways, along with work on bridges built over the track to support things such as structures, automobile roadways, and pedestrian and livestock walkways.

    Subpart CC would continue to apply to all railroad construction activities, including construction using roadway maintenance machines, unless one of the proposed exceptions found at § 1926.1442(b) 5 applies (or one of the existing exceptions in other sections applies).

    5 Proposed § 1926.1442(b) refers to the seven subparagraphs that lay out proposed exceptions. In the version of the draft regulatory text attached to the settlement, paragraph (b) incorrectly referred to six subparagraphs. With AAR's agreement, OSHA has referenced the correct number (seven) in the proposed rule.

    For the remainder of this document, references to the proposed exceptions for roadway maintenance machines or exempt equipment are intended to refer only to roadway maintenance machines not used for bridge work.

    D. § 1926.1442(b)(1)

    This proposed section would provide exemptions in accordance with Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, which exempts from the Act the working conditions of certain Federal and non-Federal employees with respect to which other Federal agencies exercise statutory authority to prescribe and enforce occupational safety and health standards.

    Following OSHA's promulgation of the crane standard in Subpart CC, the FRA promulgated its own training requirements for operators of roadway maintenance machines equipped with cranes. This FRA rule included a clear statement in the preamble that after the effective date of its new rule, “FRA regulations would apply to operators of roadway maintenance machines equipped with a crane, rather than OSHA's regulation related to crane operator qualification and certification found at 29 CFR 1926.1427” (79 FR 66460, 66475 (Nov. 7, 2014)). This FRA action has the effect of prohibiting OSHA, under section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, from enforcing its operator certification requirements with respect to operators of roadway maintenance machines (including roadway maintenance machines used for bridge construction).

    The Agency is therefore including in § 1926.1442(b)(1) an explicit exemption from proposed § 1926.1427 for these operators, to provide clear notice to employers in the railroad industry who might not otherwise be aware of the effect of the FRA's rule on OSHA's standard. Although OSHA's additional operator training requirements in § 1926.1430 were not explicitly mentioned in the FRA's rule, OSHA has included the § 1926.1430 operator training requirements in the proposed § 1926.1442(b)(1) exemption for roadway maintenance machine operators based on the FRA's statement of intent to exercise jurisdiction over all aspects of operator training.

    OSHA will also consider an exemption for roadway maintenance machine operators from operator assessment requirements that it is separately considering. OSHA initiated a rulemaking on that issue following the settlement discussions and the FRA final rule; the rulemaking would revise § 1926.1427 to require employers to evaluate their operators to ensure competency to operate specific cranes (see RIN 1218-AC96 in DOL's Fall 2017 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda). Although the FRA's final rule predated that rulemaking, OSHA preliminarily reads FRA's statement about replacing “OSHA's regulation related to crane operator qualification and certification found at 29 CFR 1926.1427” as intended to preempt all OSHA requirements that would apply to the training, certification, and assessment of operators of roadway maintenance machines. Thus, if OSHA does revise § 1926.1427 to add new operator assessment requirements, OSHA could take action through this rulemaking or the other operator assessment rulemaking to clarify that the new requirement would not apply to roadway maintenance machine operators. OSHA seeks comment on this issue, and more generally on whether OSHA should include additional preamble discussion or changes to regulatory text to address issues arising from section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act.

    E. § 1926.1442(b)(2)

    This provision would provide an exemption from existing Subpart CC requirements for using rail stops and rail clamps on all Subpart CC-covered equipment. Those requirements address hazards posed by locomotive cranes, which can swing loads at varying radii around the machine and force the machine to tip or move. AAR has explained, however, that rail stops are not typically used on railroad tracks and that many roadway maintenance machines are designed to move continuously over the tracks, so stops would interfere with the normal function of the equipment. Clamps are used occasionally, but manufacturers typically require their use when the clamps are needed for safety purposes. OSHA has not located any record of injuries that have resulted from the absence of stops or clamps on railroad equipment used during track construction and accordingly, because it appears that worker safety would not be compromised, proposes a partial exemption from the rail clamp or stop requirement.

    The proposed § 1926.1442(b)(2)(i) and (ii) would exempt employers using roadway maintenance machines while performing OSHA regulated construction activities from the requirement for rail stops while performing construction activities and would mandate the use of rail clamps only when required by the manufacturer, in accordance with existing railroad practices. If a machine's manufacturer requires using rail clamps, then the employer would have two options: (1) Ensure that the clamps are used; or (2) operate without clamps only if a registered professional engineer (RPE) determines that the clamps are not necessary. OSHA includes the proposed RPE requirement to address concerns raised by AAR that, because railroad equipment often represents only a small percentage of a crane manufacturer's market and is often specially modified for railroad use, the manufacturers are often not responsive to requests for approval of modifications or exceptions from general requirements developed for non-railroad use. An option for RPE approval thus could provide an alternative measure of safety while accommodating that aspect of railroad roadway operations. RPE approval is required, or allowed as an alternative, in a number of provisions of OSHA's crane standard (see, e.g., §§ 1926.1404(j) and (m)(1)(i); 1417(b)(3); 1434(a)(2)(i); 1435(f)(3)(ii)).

    OSHA also requests comment on whether the language of the proposed exception is clear and welcomes suggestions for clarifying it. For example, would it be clearer if OSHA replaced the “except/unless” construct with a more lengthy provision like the following: “(i) The requirement for rail clamps in § 1926.1415(a)(6) does not apply when clamps are not required by the manufacturer. When a manufacturer requires rail clamps, the employer is not required to use them if a registered professional engineer determines that rail clamps are unnecessary”?

    F. § 1926.1442(b)(2)(iii)

    This section would clarify that the requirements of § 1926.1424(a)(2) do not apply to certain employers. These requirements cover work-area controls to prevent employee injuries from the movement of the crane, such as the rotation of the crane structure as it moves a load laterally. Most of the methods of work area control involve cordoning off a work area to ensure that employees do not enter hazardous areas during crane operations. In the railroad industry, however, equipment is often continuously moving down a railroad track, so physically fixed controls would be difficult to implement. The FRA also requires employers to file a written safety program that addresses work-area safety for FRA approval (see 49 CFR 214.307(b)). Thus, although existing § 1926.1424(a)(2) allows employers to use signage in combination with special training where it is infeasible to erect a cordon, it is not clear how that alternative would comport with existing FRA requirements or what safety benefit it would add. The FRA already has a mechanism by which it can ensure that employers put in place protections to prevent the types of hazards that OSHA intended to prevent through its work-area control requirements. OSHA believes that, with respect to employers required to submit on-track safety programs with the FRA, the FRA's program preempts the work-area-control requirements in OSHA's crane standard based on the preemption provisions of 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act. Thus, proposed § 1926.1442(b)(2)(iii) states that § 1926.1424(a)(2) does not apply to any railroad employers that are required to implement an FRA-approved on-track safety program. OSHA notes that although the proposed regulatory text only explicitly addresses such employers when they actually implement such a plan, OSHA expects that it would be preempted from enforcing its 1926.1424(a)(2) requirements even if the employer failed to file or implement a program with the FRA because the FRA has exercised its jurisdiction with respect to those employers. OSHA is considering adding language in the final rule to clarify that such employers would also be exempt.

    OSHA's is also proposing to exempt from its § 1926.1424(a)(2) requirements employers who are not required to implement an FRA-approved on-track safety program but who are nevertheless implementing such a protective program, because the FRA program would provide safety protections for employees. Employers who are not required to implement a FRA-approved program and are not implementing one would be required to comply with OSHA's § 19126.1424(a)(2) requirements.

    G. § 1926.1442(b)(3)

    This proposed section would exempt roadway maintenance machines from existing restrictions on out-of-level work. These restrictions, including the requirements to comply with manufacturer out-of-level procedures in § 1926.1402(b), the inspection requirements in § 1926.1412(d)(l)(xi), and the requirement that machines have out-of-level indicators in § 1926.1415(a)(l), address the risk of equipment tipover and loss of control of the load.

    OSHA has preliminarily determined that the prohibition on out-of-level work is not practical for railroad roadway track work. In addition to thousands of miles of straight and level track, much curved track is banked and many other miles of track are inclined, as are the structures or road bed supporting the track. In 2010, OSHA responded to the unique railroad conditions with an exception to the out-of-level work prohibition for railroad equipment, but limited the exception to include only equipment traveling on the tracks (see § 1926.1402(f)). Following the rulemaking, AAR explained that many roadway maintenance machines, like a swing loader crane, often travel next to the track (as opposed to on it) but frequently must work out-of-level because the ballast and road bed are sloped. These cranes typically lift loads, which are well below the crane capacity, only a few feet off the ground and thus do not present the same type of risks as more traditional uses of cranes in construction. Both the relevant labor organizations and FRA representatives acknowledged that out-of-level operation is longstanding and necessary practice in the industry. AAR explained that industry practices already account for load-chart adjustments and other standard practices to address out-of-level work, and OSHA is proposing alternative measures to ensure that the work can be performed safely.

    OSHA accordingly proposes in § 1926.1442(b)(3)(i) and (ii) to allow out-of-level operation when two conditions are met. First, either the manufacturer must approve or modify the equipment to allow out-of-level work, or a registered professional engineer qualified with respect to the particular equipment must approve the out-of-level work for the equipment. Second, the employer must abide by the limitations and other requirements specified by the manufacturer or the engineer, or comply with a load chart modified by a qualified person for the approved out-of-level work. While OSHA expects the qualified person generally to follow the requirements established by the manufacturer or registered professional engineer, given the many unique areas of railroad work, in some cases a manufacturer or engineer might not have accounted for a particular activity that would require an additional adjustment to the load chart. OSHA included the option of allowing a qualified person to make additional adjustments to the load chart so that the employer would not need to stop work and locate an RPE every time an additional adjustment to the load chart is necessary. OSHA requests comment on whether OSHA should provide additional guidance about the types of adjustments that a qualified person may make and the extent to which the manufacturer or RPE must spell out its approval for out-of-level work.

    OSHA has drafted this exemption to include a parenthetical naming the particular sections as follows: “The restrictions on out-of-level work (including the requirements in §§ 1926.1402(b), 1926.1412(d)(l)(xi), and 1926.1415(a)(l)), and the requirements for crane-level indicators and inspections of those indicators do not apply when [lists circumstances].” But OSHA is considering relocating all or part of the parenthetical to follow “those indicators” given that § 1926.1415(a)(1) addresses requirements for crane-level indicators and inspections of those indicators, but does not otherwise address restrictions on out-of-level work. Under this option, the sentence would read “The restrictions on out-of-level work, and the requirements for crane-level indicators and inspections of those indicators (including the requirements in §§ 1926.1402(b), 1926.1412(d)(l)(xi), and 1926.1415(a)(l)), would not apply when . . . .” OSHA requests comment on which approach would be clearer.

    In addition to the exemption described above, this proposed section includes a “grandfathering” provision to exempt roadway maintenance machines from all out-of-level prohibitions if the machines were purchased before OSHA's crane standard took effect on November 8, 2010. AAR explained that older machines represent the vast majority of equipment currently used in the railroad industry and has expressed concern about the cost of obtaining manufacturer or RPE approval for out-of-level work for that number of pieces of equipment. Based on the lack of reported safety incidents involving these machines, OSHA has preliminarily determined to include an exemption for them. As a result of this exemption for older equipment, railroad employers would be able to focus their resources on obtaining manufacturer approval as part of the process of purchasing new equipment and focusing RPE expertise on equipment that has not already been as time-tested.

    OSHA is also proposing a “grandfathering” provision for the requirements in § 1926.1415(a)(1) that all covered equipment have a built-in level or a level available on the equipment and that employers inspect such level indicator to confirm that it is functioning properly (§ 1926. 1412(d)(1)(xiv)). AAR informed OSHA that most roadway maintenance machines were manufactured prior to OSHA's promulgation of the crane standard in 2010, and are not currently equipped with level indicators. AAR objected to the cost of retrofitting them with such leveling equipment if such equipment would be allowed to operate out-of-level because they were grandfathered out of the out-of-level requirements. OSHA included the requirement for a level to ensure that the equipment operator would be able to comply with the restrictions on out-of-level work, so OSHA preliminarily agrees that there would be little purpose to requiring a level on the equipment if the out-of-level restrictions do not apply. Therefore, in addition to the exception for out-of-level work, OSHA is also proposing a “grandfather” provision that would relieve railroad employers of the requirement to include or inspect crane-level indicators on roadway maintenance machines purchased before the effective date of OSHA's construction crane standard (November 8, 2010). OSHA expects that equipment purchased after that date will already be equipped with a level to comply with OSHA's crane standard.

    OSHA requests comments on its proposed grandfathering exemptions from out-of-level prohibitions and associated level indicator and indicator inspection requirements. It also requests comments on whether used equipment originally purchased before November 8, 2010, but resold at a later date should be entitled to these grandfathering exceptions. OSHA also requests comment on whether the “grandfathering” provisions should be conditioned on other factors, such as a certain number of years of safe use or evidence of regular maintenance on the machine. The Agency further requests any data on these subjects that could better inform its decision making.

    H. § 1926.1442(b)(4)

    Dragging a load sideways. The proposed § 1926.1442(b)(4) exemption provides relief from the prohibition in § 1926.1417(q) against using cranes or derricks to drag a load sideways. AAR informed OSHA that an existing practice during many track construction projects for roadway maintenance machines is to drag rail or ties sideways. AAR explained that the practice of dragging long pieces of rail sideways off of the ties or to position them on top of the ties is routine and critical to the process, does not have a ready alternative, does not involve lifts more than a few feet off of the ground, and the movement of the load is predictable because the procedure is repeated over and over with the same materials. OSHA has not located any record of injuries resulting from the longstanding practice of using railroad equipment during track construction and accordingly proposes an exemption from the new prohibition on dragging a load sideways.

    I. § 1926.1442(b)(5)

    Boom-hoist limiting device. This proposed section would clarify existing § 1926.1416(d)(1), which requires equipment manufactured after December 16, 1969, to have a boom-hoist limiting device. Traditionally, boom hoists wind wire rope around a revolving drum. They continue to wind until stopped by the operator, a limiting device, or by damaging the machine. The process is somewhat analogous to a fisherman winding line on a rod and reel: If too much winding occurs, the lure is pulled into the rod tip; more winding bends and breaks the rod or detaches the lure. The limiting device prevents similar results on boom hoist equipped cranes and derricks by automatically stopping the winding. On hydraulic cylinder/piston equipped booms, the § 1926.1416(d)(1) requirement for a limiting device is redundant because the stroke or piston travel is an inherent limit in each cylinder/piston. OSHA proposes § 1926.1442(b)(5) to clarify that roadway maintenance machines using a hydraulic piston for raising and lowering the boom do not need a separate boom-hoist limiting device. The addition of this provision should not adversely affect worker safety.

    J. § 1926.1442(b)(6)

    Manufacturer guidance for modifications covered by § 1926.1434. The proposed rule would modify the application of § 1926.1434, which requires employers to obtain and follow equipment manufacturer's guidance for equipment modifications except in certain circumstances, for the railroad roadway context. Many roadway maintenance machines are modified for railroad use. AAR stated that some manufacturers of these machines no longer exist and others are often reluctant to approve modifications for a variety of reasons, including liability concerns arising from their lack of expertise in railroad operations. AAR argued that employers in the railroad industry are best suited to oversee the safety of railroad equipment modification based on their long history of safe operation with modified equipment. OSHA agrees that given the unique nature of the railroad industry and the equipment used for track work, it would be appropriate to simplify how a railroad employer may use modified equipment without involving the manufacturer, but continuing to include safety assurances. Modifications covered by this exception would include: Alterations to the physical structure of the equipment and modifications to the use of the equipment, such as adding metal wheels for operation on railroad tracks, increasing charted capacity by shortening and strengthening the lattice boom, or increasing reach by lengthening the boom and reducing charted capacity.

    According to proposed § 1926.1442(b)(6), an employer may use modified railroad roadway maintenance equipment regardless of manufacturer guidance when three conditions are met. First, an RPE qualified with respect to the equipment must approve the procedure, modifications, addition, or repair; specify the equipment configurations described in the approval; and modify applicable procedures, load charts, manuals, instructions, plates, tags, and decals. Second, the employer must operate the equipment within the specifications and limitations set by the engineer. Third, taking into account the modifications and procedures, the equipment's safety factor must remain at or above 1.7 for the structural integrity of the boom, or 1.25 for stability, unless the original safety factors were lower. The “safety factor” of the equipment is a common term used to assess the strength and stability of cranes, and OSHA derived these safety factors based on its engineering judgment. OSHA believes that these safety factors can be readily determined by an engineer based on documentation and analyses. The language of this exception was based on the existing provision in § 1926.1431(a)(2) allowing employers to modify equipment when a manufacturer refuses to review the request. In some cases, equipment manufacturers specify safety factors less than 1.7 and 1.25. In those cases, the employer could rely on the manufacturer's specifications. But if the original safety factor of the equipment is not available or was originally set at or higher than 1.7 or 1.25, the proposed exception would allow equipment modifications resulting in a safety factor no lower than 1.7 for the structural boom and 1.25 for stability, subject to the other provisions of the exception (RPE approval). OSHA requests comments on this proposed exception, including the safety factors and the proposal to allow compliance with lower manufacturer-specified values. OSHA also requests comment on whether the structure of proposed paragraph (b)(6)(i) would be improved by moving the last clause of subparagraph (A), “and specifies the equipment configurations to which that approval applies;” to a separate subparagraph (B) to make it clearer that this is a separate requirement (proposed subparagraph (B) would be re-designated as subparagraph (C)).

    K. § 1926.1442(b)(7)

    Other manufacturer guidance. This proposed exception would apply to several other sections of Subpart CC that require employers to follow manufacturer's guidance, instructions, procedures, prohibitions, limitations, or specifications. The restrictions are found in §§ 1926.1404(j), (m), or (q); 1926.1417(a), (r), (u), or (aa); 1926.1433(d)(l)(i); and in 1926.1441. The proposed exemptions in § 1926.1442(b)(7) would allow employers to use roadway maintenance machines without regard for the manufacturer's listed restrictions if the following conditions are met: (1) An RPE familiar with the equipment provides a written determination of the appropriate limitations for equipment use; and (2) the employer does not exceed those limitations. Like the exemption in proposed § 1926.1442(b)(6) above, this proposed exemption responds to practices in the railroad industry of modifying equipment from manager specifications for the unique needs of railway maintenance. This exemption is intended to preserve existing use practices in the railroad industry while relying on the expertise of an RPE familiar with the equipment to ensure the safety of the equipment for departures from manufacturer guidance. The exemption also provides employers a means to operate safely in cases where obtaining manufacturer's approval is impossible, such as when the manufacturer no longer exists.

    OSHA requests comments on all of the proposed exemptions and their explanations provided in this document.

    L. Requirement for RPE Determinations To Be in Writing

    The agency notes that there is some inconsistency between different proposed exemptions as to whether required determinations by RPEs or others must be in writing. For example, proposed § 1926.1442(b)(2)(i) conditions part of the exemption on an RPE determination that rail clamps are not necessary, but does not explicitly require that determination to be in writing. Likewise, proposed § 1926.1442(b)(3)(i) requires RPE approval of out-of-level work but does not specify that the approval be in writing. However, proposed § 1926.1442(b)(7)(i) would require written approval from an RPE for modifications not approved by a manufacturer. OSHA requests comment on whether it should require all of the determinations and approvals to be in writing to ensure accurate communication and facilitate enforcement.

    IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) also require OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that the Agency promulgates. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

    The cost savings for employers for this proposed rule are the difference between the 2010 rule and the residual costs, which is a savings of $15.7 million per year at a discount rate of 3 percent.6 This proposal is not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, nor is it a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). In addition, this rule complies with Executive Order 13563.

    6 At a discount rate of 7 percent the cost savings are $17.0 million per year. Estimates in this economic analysis are derived from OSHA's economic analysis of the 2010 rule, other public sources, and a survey performed by AAR of its members and provided to OSHA under the settlement agreement for use in this analysis (AAR, 2015). Due to rounding as shown in the text versus the underlying exact spreadsheet calculations, some text calculations may vary from the exact presented totals. All dollar amounts in the text are brought forward to 2017 dollars.

    When it issued the final crane standard in 2010, OSHA prepared a final economic analysis (FEA) to ensure compliance with the OSH Act and Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) (Sept. 30, 1993). OSHA also published a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). On September 26, 2014, the Agency included additional economic analysis when it published a final rule extending the employer duty to ensure operator competency and the deadline for all crane operators to become certified (79 FR 57785.) Because OSHA did not have sufficient data at the time, OSHA did not include in either rulemaking a complete assessment of the economic impact on the railroad industry.

    This preliminary economic analysis (PEA) not only addresses the economic impact of the proposed revisions to the crane standard, but also completes the analysis of the impact of the entire crane standard on the railroad industry. This analysis relies primarily on the same methodology applied to other industries in the 2010 economic analysis of the crane standard. In conducting that analysis, the Agency relies mainly on the best available economic data provided by AAR to the Agency as part of its settlement agreement. The Agency provided a list of questions to AAR, which then surveyed Class I freight railroad members and returned the results, along with other general responsive information, to OSHA. Those responses (referenced as AAR 2015) as well as some estimates from the economic analysis supporting the September 26, 2014, operator certification deadline extension final rule form the basis of this PEA.

    The proposed exemptions would relieve the railroad industry of several cost burdens related to the crane standard. OSHA estimates that the 2010 rule would have cost the railroad industry $24.2 million annually. The residual costs the industry would still face after factoring in the exemptions in this proposed rule would be $8.5 million per year. Finally, the cost savings for employers for this proposed rule are the difference between the 2010 rule and the residual costs, which is a savings of $15.7 million per year. These estimates are at a discount rate of 3 percent. At a discount rate of 7 percent the economic analysis of the 2010 rule would have costs of $25.6 million annually. The residual costs the industry would still face with the regulatory changes in this proposed rule would be $8.6 million per year. Finally, the cost savings for employers for this proposed rule are the difference between the 2010 rule and the residual costs, which is a savings of $17.0 million per year. When the Department uses a perpetual time horizon to allow for cost comparisons under E.O. 13771, the annualized cost-savings of this proposed rule is the same: $17.0 million with 7 percent discounting.

    a. Scope of the Exemption

    The railroad industry is typically divided into three “classes” of railroads according to a revenue-based classification scheme developed by the Surface Transportation Board (STB).7 Class I railroads are the largest railroads with the greatest amount of revenue and primarily comprise seven large freight railroads and the Amtrak passenger train service. They operate the vast majority of track across the country. Class II and III railroads are smaller freight railroad companies, various commuter lines, and other specialty lines that operate much smaller sections of track or operate on track owned by the larger railroads.

    7 See 49 CFR 1201, General Instructions 1-1. Class I railroads are those with annual carrier operating revenues of more than $250 million, Class II railroads are those with operating revenues between $20 million and $250 million, and Class III railroads have annual revenues less than $20 million.

    OSHA has imperfect information about the three classes of railroads. The AAR survey only covered the Class I freight railroads. AAR was also able to provide some additional information it obtained from Amtrak, but due to the patchy nature of national statistics for the railroad industry, OSHA has not been able to obtain corresponding data for Class II and Class III railroads.

    Therefore, for this NPRM, the Agency has used indirect estimates to scale up partial data to create estimates for the industry as a whole. The U.S. Department of Transportation states that Class I freight railroads operated 94,400 miles (68%) of the 139,400 total miles in the U.S. system.8 Amtrak stated that it maintains 852 miles of track (Amtrak, 2017). In combination with Class I freight track, the total Class I track estimate is therefore 95,252 (94,400 miles operated by Class I freight + 852 miles operated by Amtrak) out of the total U.S. track of 139,400. AAR also stated that its members operate 6,935 machines that might fall within the scope of OSHA's crane standard (AAR, 2015), and Amtrak stated that it operates 303 machines that might fall within that standard (Amtrak, 2017). Assuming that non Class-I railroads use machines in the same way as Class I, OSHA is able to estimate the total number of potentially covered equipment by scaling up the total number of Class I machines by the ratio of total track to Class I track, or 1.46 (139,400/(94,400 + 852)).9 With the total number of Class I machines at 7,238 (6,935 freight + 303 Amtrak), the final estimate of all railroad industry machines is 10,593 (7,238 × 1.46). To the extent that Class I railroads perform track work for other segments of the railroad industry, this markup will be an overestimate. The Agency solicits comment and any further data on this issue.

    8 “The United States had almost 140,000 railroad route-miles in 2014, including about 94,400 miles owned and operated by the seven Class I freight railroads. Amtrak, local, and regional railroads operated the remaining 45,000 miles.” (DOT/BTS, 2016, p. 16 (internal citation omitted)).

    9 From this point forward, this PEA refers to the ratio of total track to Class I track (1.46) as “the standard markup”.

    Based on information provided by FRA staff from its Office of Safety Analysis, OSHA estimates that there are a total of 775 railroads (OSHA discussion with FRA staff, September 9, 2014). AAR reported that in 2012 the total number of freight railroads, including the 7 Class I freight railroads, was 574 (AAR, 2014). The remainder of the railroads are passenger and commuter railroads, intra-plant railroads (that do not operate on the national freight system), freight car manufacturers, freight car repair facilities or companies that provide specialized rail services, and switching and terminal railroads. The Agency assumes 2012 data continue to approximate industry conditions today.

    To estimate the cost savings from the NPRM exemptions, the number of machines must be broken out into subcategories. First there is a small group of Class I machines that would fit into the proposed full exemption for flash-butt welding trucks and similar equipment under proposed 1400(c)(18). AAR reported that its members had 22 machines that would fall within the proposed exemption, (AAR, 2015),10 while Amtrak indicated that none of its equipment would (Amtrak, 2017). Using the same ratio to account for this exempt equipment in Class II and III railroads, OSHA estimates that there is a total of 32 pieces of such exempt equipment across the entire railroad industry (1.46 × 22). Thus, OSHA estimates that 7,216 (7,238−22) Class I machines, and an industry total of 10,561 (10,593−32) machines, would fall under at least some provisions of the crane rule and would not, even upon finalization of this proposed rule, be completely exempt from the crane standard.

    10 For the purposes of this analysis, OSHA has treated all flash-butt welding trucks and similar equipment as covered by the standard absent the proposed exemption.

    Second, OSHA estimates that there are 186 Class I machines exclusively engaged in bridge work, and a further 269 Class I machines, including 2 Amtrak machines, used to do both track and bridge work, all of which would be covered to some extent by the OSHA construction crane standard (the proposed exemptions do not apply to bridgework). Because some costs will need to be taken into account if any bridge work at all is performed by a machine, the Agency took the conservative approach of lumping together those doing some bridge work with those doing bridge work exclusively.11 OSHA only estimates cost savings for machines used exclusively for non-bridge work. Thus, the number of Class I machines that will still need to comply with all of the provisions in the crane standard (other than the operator training and certification provisions) is 455 (186 + 269), with an industry total of 666 machines (455 × 1.46) outside the proposed limited exceptions and covered by the crane standard.

    11 The AAR survey asked what percentage of time these dual use machines and operators were doing track work and the response was 90-95%. Hence for certain costs this allocation of assuming all their work is on bridges will underestimate cost savings.

    b. Non-Operator Base Costs of 2010 Crane Standard for Railroads

    Railroads are subject to all requirements of the 2010 crane standard (unless previously exempted in the 2010 rule or, upon finalization, specifically exempted through this rulemaking). An economic analysis of the costs imposed by that standard on the industry was not presented in the 2010 final rule and is, therefore, presented here. Table B-9 of the final rule (75 FR 48104) shows that railroads are in the “Own but Do Not Rent” sector of the industry profile. The Agency estimates the costs of the 2010 rule by using the costs for the “Own but Do Not Rent” sector as a proxy for railroad costs, scaling these aggregate costs by the size of the railroad industry as presented above. The Agency recognizes this proxy may be imperfect and solicits comment and additional information regarding these estimates.

    Costs other than certification will be incurred by railroad employers using equipment covered by OSHA's crane standard. Most 2010 rule provisions other than operator certification and training are not operator specific, so the Agency estimates the cost of the existing requirements by identifying the per-crane non-operator cost of the 2010 final rule and applying that cost (inflated to 2017 dollars) to the number of affected machines in the Railroad sector. Then OSHA identifies the costs that would be avoided if the proposed exemptions are adopted.

    The “Own but Do Not Rent” sector in Table B-9 (75 FR 48104) has total operator certification costs of $30,606,452 and overall total costs of $62,651,984, leaving $32,045,531 in non-certification costs ($62,651,984−$30,606,452).12 The “Own but Do Not Rent” sector was listed as having 50,807 cranes and other covered equipment (Table B-11, 75 FR 48107). Thus, excluding operator certification costs, OSHA's 2010 cost estimates for the “Own but Do Not Rent” sector amounted to $631 per machine ($32,045,531/50,807). Using the 1.12 GDP deflator factor this cost brought forward to 2017 dollars is $707 (BEA, 2017).

    12 In the 2010 rulemaking, OSHA did not include any additional costs for operator training, other than certification exam preparation, because operator training was already required under the previous standard. Thus, this analysis relies exclusively on operator certification costs as the costs avoided by the exemption for railroads from OSHA's operator training and certification requirements.

    Based on this per-machine cost of the 2010 rule and the estimate of 10,593 total pieces of railroad equipment covered by the 2010 rule, the total annual base non-operator cost of the 2010 rule to the entire railroad industry would be $7,486,362 (10,593 × $706.75; 2017 dollars). The proposed exception for flash-butt welding trucks and similar equipment would remove 32 machines and lower the cost in 2017 dollars to $7,463,607 (10,561 × $706.75), which is a savings of $22,755.

    These are the base non-operator costs only. There are two pieces of equipment specific to cranes on rails that would have a special impact on railroads absent the proposed exemptions: Rail clamps and rail stops. These were not included in the base costs and are addressed next.

    c. Rail Clamps and Rail Stops

    Rail clamps are one type of equipment that would no longer be required under the proposed exemption. AAR told OSHA that the railroad industry does not typically use rail clamps for most operations and indicated that 5,663 additional rail clamps beyond what the Class I railroad industry currently has in stock would need to be purchased to comply with the existing rule (AAR, 2015). Further communication from AAR stated that Amtrak would need 157 additional clamps (Amtrak, 2017). These rail claims would impose new up-front, maintenance, and replacement costs on the industry.

    OSHA estimates a total cost for rail clamps of $51,104,943, plus an additional $4,897,557 for maintenance. OSHA derives these costs first by applying the standard markup of 1.46 to estimate non-Class I railroad use clamps as 8,517 (1.46 × (5,663 + 157)). OSHA then estimates the up-front cost for each unit. AAR's survey reported as follows: “The majority of the railroads indicated that the unit cost for a rail clamp is $5,000-$6,000. However, one of the railroads contacted a manufacturer and obtained a unit cost of $10,000.” (AAR, 2015 p. 5). OSHA's costs are estimated to reflect the average costs for most firms, so the Agency selects the higher-end of the typical cost of $6,000 from the AAR survey. Therefore, the total cost for rail clamps would be $51,104,943 (8,517 × $6,000). Annualized over 10 years at a discount rate of 3%, the annualized cost is $5,991,058. Annual maintenance costs per clamp are estimated at $575 13 for a total annual maintenance cost of $4,897,557 (8,517 × $575).

    13 This is the midpoint of the range in the AAR survey of $450 to $700 ($575 = ($450 + $700)/2).

    OSHA also estimates annual replacement costs of $3,741,650 associated with the clamp requirement for the railroad industry. From the (AAR 2015) survey, the number of replacement clamps needed over 10 years for Class I freight is 4,223. OSHA did not receive an estimate for the number of replacement clamps that Amtrak or the Class II and III railroads would use, so the Agency has developed an estimate for additional replacement clamps based on the ratio of Class I freight railroad track to all other track. The resulting markup factor for purely Class I freight track as compared to the entire U.S. railroad industry track is 1.48 (139,400 miles of total U.S. track/94,400 miles of Class I freight track). Applying this freight markup to the total number of replacement clamps produces an estimate of 6,236 for the entire industry (4,223 × 1.48). If 10% of these clamps are replaced each year, then with the unit cost equal to the purchase price of $6,000, annual replacement costs will total $3,741,650 (6,236 × 10% × $6,000).14 Summed together, the annual cost savings for rail clamps for the railroad industry are $14,630,265 ($5,991,058 initial cost + $4,897,557 maintenance + $3,741,650 replacement clamps).

    14 If the total pool of working clamps is kept constant, as we assume, then the maintenance costs for the replacement clamps are already accounted for in the annual maintenance costs for the original pool.

    Rail stops are the second type of equipment that would no longer be required under the proposed exemption. For rail stops, OSHA estimates total up-front costs of $5,110,494 and maintenance costs of $511,049. AAR indicated that 11,326 additional rail stops beyond what the Class I freight railroads currently have in stock would need to be purchased (AAR, 2015). Amtrak indicated it would need an additional 314 stops (Amtrak, 2017). The standard (track-based) markup derived earlier in this PEA and applied to the sum of Class I rail stops and Amtrak rail stops produces an estimated 17,035 additional rail stops for the entire industry (1.46 × (11,326 + 314)). The unit cost of a rail stop is $300 each (AAR, 2015); therefore, the total cost of rail stops is $5,110,494 (17,035 × $300). Annualized over 10 years at a discount rate of 3%, the annual cost is $599,106. Annual maintenance costs per stop are $30 (AAR, 2015); therefore, total maintenance cost is $511,049 (17,035 × $30).

    OSHA also estimates annual replacement costs of $462,324 associated with the rail stop requirement for the railroad industry. The number of replacement stops for the Class I freight railroads needed over 10 years is 10,436 (AAR, 2015). OSHA did not receive information regarding the number of replacement stops required for Amtrak or the Class II and III railroads. OSHA again focuses on the ratio of all U.S. railroad track to Class I freight railroad track, which is 1.48. The number of replacement stops needed for the whole industry is 15,410 (1.48 × 10,436). If 10% of the replacement stops will be introduced each year then 1,541 replacement railroad stops will be required each year (15,410 × .10). The estimate of the annual unit cost for these replacement stops is the unit cost for buying a new rail stop of $300.15 Hence the total annual cost for replacement rail stops is $462,324 (1,541 × $300). Summed together, annual cost savings of railroad stops are $1,572,479 ($599,106 + $511,049 + $462,324).

    15 As in the preceding footnote, maintenance costs for these replacement stops will already be accounted for in the maintenance costs for the original pool under the assumption of a constant total pool.

    Adding the total costs savings of both railroad stops and clamps in 2016 dollars gives $16,202,744 ($14,630,265 + $1,572,479). In year 2017 dollars, the cost savings for both railroad stops and clamps is $16,704,394.

    The Agency has adjusted these cost-savings estimates to account for the costs that the railroad industry will incur for rail clamps and stops related to bridgework because the proposed exemption does not cover rail clamps and stops used in bridge construction activity. To adjust for these costs, the Agency proxies rail clamp use on bridges by AAR's survey responses for such use by machines. Based on the estimates identified earlier, there are a total of 666 machines engaged in bridgework out of 10,561 total machines (assuming that flash-butt machines as not engaged in any bridge work). Hence the estimate of the share of rail clamps that will be exempted is 94% (10,561−666)/10,561). The total cost for bridge work for clamps and stops is $1,053,284 ($16,704,394 × (1−.94)). That cost will remain for the industry even if the proposed exemptions are ultimately finalized, but the remaining rail clamp and rail stop costs would be avoided. The cost savings due to the proposed exemption for clamps/stops is $15,651,110 ($16,704,394 × .94) in 2017 dollars.

    d. Work Area Controls

    OSHA estimates no economic impact from the proposed exemption from compliance with the crane standard's work-area controls requirements. FRA already requires a number of work area controls to prevent injury to those working on or around railroad equipment and OSHA believes that even if the proposed exemption from work-area controls is not finalized, the railroads could comply with OSHA's requirements without incurring significant new costs. Therefore, OSHA is neither identifying a new cost for this requirement nor treating the proposed exemption as resulting in any cost saving.

    e. Out-of-Level Work

    The 2010 crane rule economic analysis did not estimate any cost increase due to this provision. Thus, there would be no resulting savings from this exemption.

    f. Dragging a Load Sideways

    The 2010 crane rule economic analysis estimated no increased cost due to this provision, and OSHA has likewise included no cost saving from the exemption from it. It is possible that the exemption does result in significant cost savings: AAR indicated that railroad equipment regularly needs to drag long portions of rail sideways during the process of installing or replacing the rail, ties, or underlying road bed. Therefore AAR asserted that the prohibition on dragging a load sideways would force railroad employers to substantially change current practices for track installation and replacement. If such changes were feasible, they would likely incur significant cost. However, because OSHA did not previously estimate any increased costs for this provision, OSHA has not included any cost saving as part of this rulemaking.

    g. Boom-Hoist Limiting Device

    The 2010 crane rule economic analysis estimated that such boom hoist limiting devices would generally already be in place, where needed. Hence OSHA did not include any new costs for this requirement in 2010, so there would be no resulting savings from this exemption.

    h. Manufacturer Guidance for Modifications Covered by § 1926.1434

    The 2010 crane rule economic analysis estimated that there would be no new costs due to this provision because it was similar enough to the previous Subpart N crane standard. Hence this exemption would produce no cost savings.

    i. Operator Certification and Assessment

    Because the FRA specifically preempted OSHA's operator training and certification requirements when it issued its own operator training rules for railroads, the costs of this standard for operator training and certification do not apply to railroads and thus the proposed rule would not result in any cost savings. As discussed in the preamble of this proposed rule, OSHA is also considering a separate rulemaking that would specify additional operator assessment responsibilities for each employer. OSHA expects that FRA's training rule would also preclude the OSHA's assessment requirements, if promulgated, from impacting railroad employers. At this juncture, OSHA does not anticipate any cost to railroad employers as a result of OSHA's requirements for employer assessment of operators, whether or not OSHA modifies the assessment requirements.

    j. Total Cost and Savings From Proposal

    Finally, adding together the rail clamp/stop costs and the base non-operator costs, the total cost of the 2010 rule is $24,190,756 ($16,704,394 + 7,486,362). Factoring in the proposed exemptions, the total costs that will still be incurred by the industry are $8,516,891 ($1,053,284 clamps and stops + $7,463,607 base non-operator costs). Cost savings of the proposal are $15,673,865 ($24,190,756−$8,516,891). These calculations are at a discount rate of 3%, using 2017 dollars. At a discount rate of 7%, the costs would be as follows: Total costs of $25,648,173, total ongoing costs of $8,608,788, and cost savings of $17,039,385.

    k. Economic Impacts

    This section investigates the economic impacts of this proposal, whether the proposed rule is economically feasible for the industry as a whole, and whether the Agency can certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA applies two threshold tests to look at economic feasibility for firms overall, regardless of size: Whether the rule's costs as a percentage of revenues for a sector as a whole are below 1 percent, and whether those costs as a percentage of profits are below 10 percent. For small entities there are also two threshold tests: Whether the costs for small entities are 1 percentage of their revenues or below, and whether those costs are 5 percent or less of the small entities' profits. None of these threshold tests are hard ceilings or determinative; they are guidelines the Agency uses to examine whether there are any potential economic feasibility issues that require additional study. As for the overall totals estimated above, the Agency must use indirect estimates since no public firm-by-firm information exists.

    The Agency relies on SBA size standards to classify a company as “small.” The SBA size standard for a small entity in the railroad industry is employment of 1,500 or less (SBA, 2016). The seven Class I freight railroads employ a total of 162,819 employees, or an average of 23,260 employees per firm (162,819/7). The Agency estimates that all 7 freight railroads will be above the 1,500-employee SBA size standard. Amtrak has more than 20,000 employees, and will also be well above the small entity threshold (https://www.amtrak.com/about-amtrak/amtrak-facts/amtrak-national-facts.html). While there is likely to be a skew among non-Class I railroads and some of these freight railroads may actually exceed the threshold for small businesses, for the purposes of this analysis the Agency treats all 767 non-Class I firms (775 railroads−8 Class I railroads) as below the SBA size standard of 1,500 employees.

    According to AAR, the Class I freight railroads in 2012 had revenue 16 of $67.6 billion out of the total of $71.6 billion for the entire freight industry, so the share of Class I freight revenues is 94 percent (67.6/71.6), while $4 billion (71.6−67.6) are the revenues for small freight railroads (AAR, 2014).

    16 These are freight revenues rather than total revenue. (AAR 2014) only reports freight, rather than total, revenue for non-Class I railroads. In 2013, Class I freight revenue was 70.5 billion while total revenue was 72.9 billion, or 97% (70.5/72.9). Using only freight revenue will give a slight under-estimate of total revenues, and a slight over-estimate of the final ratio wanted: (costs/revenue). Because these ratios turn out to be very small, we do not include any correction for using freight rather than total revenues.

    OSHA applied AAR's report of 2012 operating income (profits) for Class I to estimate the average profits of the non-Class I railroads. Class I freight railroads' net income was $11.9 billion (AAR, 2014), and assuming that the Class I net income share was the same as its operating revenue share, OSHA derives a total freight industry net income of $12.6 billion ($11.9/.94) in 2012, and hence small freight railroad total net income of $704 million ($12.6 − $11.9) in 2012. OSHA did not receive income estimates regarding non-freight railroads, so applying the standard freight-only markup to those totals to account for passenger rail, OSHA estimates $18.6 billion ($12.6 × 1.48) and $1.0 billion ($704 × 1.48), respectively, for total railroad (including passenger rail) and small railroad net income (including passenger rail). Using the GDP deflator to convert these amounts to 2017 dollars results in $19.9 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively.

    Finally, OSHA allocates costs to the small railroads. The share of employment, rather than revenue, was judged to be the better proxy to estimate the costs of small railroads. From the information provided earlier, Class I freight employment is 90% of total freight railroad employment and the total railroad industry freight costs are $24.1 million, so total small railroad industry costs are $2.4 million ($24.1 million × (1 − .90)). The revenues, profits, and costs are set out in Table 1.

    Table 1 Total and Small Railroad Industry Estimated Financial Statistics Description 2017 Dollars Revenue: Total Revenue $113 billion. Small Entity Revenue 6.3 billion. Profit: Total Profit 19.9 billion. Small Entity Profit 1.1 billion. Cost: Total Cost (existing) 24.2 million. Total Cost (with proposed exemption) 8.5 million. Small Entity Cost (existing) 2.5 million. Small Entity Cost (with proposed exemption) 155,068.

    The ratio of the proposed rule's costs to revenue for total railroads is .02% ($24.2m/$113 billion) and for small railroads is .04% ($2.5m/$6.3 billion). The ratio of the proposed rule's costs to profits for total railroads is .12% ($24.2m/$19.9 billion) and for small railroads it is .22% ($2.5m/$1.1 billion). Both easily pass OSHA's standard threshold impacts tests of costs being below 1% of revenue and 10% of profits (5% of profits for small entities.) The proposed exemptions would drastically lower those costs, so the thresholds would be even easier to meet. These estimates are scaling several Class I numbers so the results are sensitive to whether these (scaled) numbers are representative of the rest of the industry. The Agency requests comment and further information on these issues.

    l. Overhead Cost Adjustment

    The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in the PEA for this rule. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to examine the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,17 and government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77 percent.18 19 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and marketing, vary with output rather than with labor costs. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. Rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but those costs may change substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated with 2 hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).

    17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,” June 10, 2002.

    18 Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey. (https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx.).

    19 For a further example of overhead cost estimates, please see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.

    If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and had adopted an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, such rate would have only affected the non-operator certification costs estimated from the 2010 rule. Because labor costs were only part of those costs, including this overhead adjustment would have increased the average cost per machine from $631 to $684, a 9 percent increase. Using this larger per machine cost in the rest of the analysis would increase the final cost savings of this proposal from $15.674 million to $15.676 million at a discount rate of 3 percent, an increase of .01 percent. It would also have increased cost savings from $17.039 million to $17.041 million at a discount rate of 7 percent, an increase of .01 percent.

    m. Economic and Technological Feasibility

    All requirements of the proposed rule have now been in place since the promulgation of the crane standard in 2010, and the only feasibility issues for the railroad industry raised with OSHA were addressed through its settlement with AAR. For example, AAR raised concerns that it would not be feasible for railroads to avoid dragging rails sideways because this activity is an essential component of railroad construction. OSHA is now proposing to exempt railroads from this prohibition in the 2010 crane standard on dragging loads sideways. The Agency does not have sufficient information to estimate the costs to the railroad industry of this prohibition. It also does not have enough data to estimate the cost savings that could result from the proposed exemption but they could be significant. OSHA requests information to help it better estimate the cost-saving implications of this proposed exemption. Beyond the issues raised by AAR and addressed in the settlement, the Agency is not aware of any special infeasibility issues that are unique to the railroad industry and the 2010 technological feasibility analysis is equally applicable to the railroad industry.

    OSHA found that the 2010 final crane standard is feasible for all affected industries because the “[c]osts of 0.2 percent of revenues and 4% of profits will not threaten the existence of the construction industry, affected general industry sectors, or the use of cranes in affected industry sectors,” and no change in the competitive structure of those industries was expected (75 FR 48112). The above analysis shows that the cost of the 2010 rule on railroads is 0.02 percent of revenues and 0.13 percent of profits, and the proposed rule, which would exempt railroads from many of the requirements of the 2010 rule would be still less costly. This supports OSHA's finding that the 2010 final rule is economically feasible for all affected industries (including railroads) and a finding that the OSHA proposal is also economically feasible. The Agency preliminarily concludes that the proposed rule is both economically and technologically feasible for the railroad industry.

    n. Certification of No Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities

    In determining that the 2010 final rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, OSHA found that in no case would a small entity have to increase prices more than 0.18 percent or, if costs could not be passed on, absorb costs comprising more than 5.0 percent of profits (75 FR 47913, 48115). As discussed above, as applied to small railroads, the 2010 rule would be just 0.04 percent of revenues and 0.24 percent of costs, which supports OSHA's 2010 determination as applied to railroads. Because the proposed rule would exempt railroads from several of the requirements of the 2010 rule, the proposed rule would reduce the cost impact on small entities. Thus, the Agency certifies that the proposed rule will have not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    References AAR, 2014. Association of American Railroads, “Class I Railroad Statistics,” July 15, 2014. Available at: https://www.aar.org/StatisticsAndPublications/Documents/AAR-Stats.pdf. (Accessed 12/6/2017.) AAR, 2015. Association of American Railroads. “AAR's Response to OSHA Economic Questions,” memo from AAR to OSHA, June 22, 2015. Amtrak, 2017. Amtrak. “Amtrak Response to OSHA Economic Questions,” via email from AAR (August 8, 2017, and November 2, 2017). BEA, 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. Available at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=1995&903=13&906=a&905=2016&910=x&911=1. (Accessed March 23, 2017.) USDOT/BTS 2016. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2016,” Washington, DC: 2016. Available at https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/TSAR_2016.pdf. OSHA, 2016. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Operator Certification Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Summary and Economic Analysis. SBA, 2016. Small Business Administration, “Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes,” February 2016. V. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b). A safety or health standard “requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment.” 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. See Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (1980). In the 2010 crane rulemaking, OSHA made such a determination with respect to the use of all cranes and derricks in construction, including cranes used in the railroad industry (75 FR 47913, 47920-21). This proposed rule includes a number of exemptions and does not impose any new requirements on employers. Therefore it does not require an additional significant-risk finding (see Edison Elec. Inst. v. OSHA, 849 F.2d 611, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

    In addition to materially reducing a significant risk, a safety standard must be technologically feasible. See UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994). A standard is technologically feasible when the protective measures it requires already exist, when available technology can bring the protective measures into existence, or when that technology is reasonably likely to develop (see Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). In the 2010 Final Economic Analysis for the crane standard, OSHA found the standard to be technologically feasible (75 FR 48079). Also, this proposed rule is technologically feasible because it would not require employers to implement any additional protective measures. Instead, it would offer employers new compliance alternatives and exemptions.

    VI. Office of Management and Budget Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act A. Overview

    The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., include enhancing the quality and utility of information the Federal government requires and minimizing the paperwork and reporting burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information (also referred to as a “paperwork” requirement), including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information. The PRA defines “collection of information” as “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and displays a currently valid OMB control number, and the public is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).

    B. Solicitation of Comments

    The “Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work” proposal would establish new information-collection requirements. The proposal would also modify a number of information-collection requirements in the existing Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC) Information Collection (IC) approved by OMB.

    Some of these revisions, if adopted, would result in changes to the existing burden-hour and/or cost estimates associated with the currently OMB-approved information-collection requirements contained in the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard Information Collection. The proposed rule would also revise existing standard provisions that are not information-collection requirements. Those revisions are not addressed in this preamble section.

    Concurrent with publication of this proposed rule, OSHA prepared and submitted a revised Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard (29 CFR part 1926, subpart CC) Information Collection Request (ICR) reflecting the NPRM's new information collection-requirements to OMB for review under control number 1218-0261. When and if the final rule is published, OSHA will submit a revised ICR for the final Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard that will include railroad roadway work to OMB for approval. Pursuant to the PRA, the public may comment directly to OMB on the information-collection (paperwork) requirements during a 30-day period following the submission of the document to OMB. This comment period is in addition to the opportunity for the public to provide comments directly to the agency.

    The Agency and OMB solicit comments on the Cranes and Derricks Standard information-collection requirements as they would be established or revised by this rule. In particular, comments are sought that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the time and cost burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • 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.

    A copy of the ICR for this proposal with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, estimated frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201710-1218-003 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this document).

    C. Proposed Revisions to the Information Collection Requirements

    As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(1), OSHA is providing the following summary information about the information-collection requirements identified in the proposal.

    1. Title: Cranes and Derricks in Construction (29 CFR part 1926 subpart CC)

    2. Description of the ICR. The proposal creates new information-collection requirements associated with the existing “Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard” Information Collection. These information-collection requirements are discussed below and in more specific detail in Section III: Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Amendments to Subpart CC.

    Sections 1926.1442(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(iii)—Rail Clamps and Work-Area Controls Exemptions

    Section 1926.1442(b)(2)(i) exempts the railroad equipment from the requirement in § 1926.1415(a)(6) for rail clamps when the manufacturer does not require them. When the manufacturer does require the clamps, the proposal allows the employer to seek an exemption by obtaining an RPE's determination that rail clamps are not necessary.

    Section 1926.1442(b)(2)(iii) provides that the work-area controls specified by § 1926.1424(a)(2) do not apply when employers have implemented an on-track safety program that addresses work-area safety for the equipment, and the FRA approved the on-track safety program in accordance with 49 CFR 214.307(b). The FRA already has a mechanism by which it can ensure that employers put in place sufficient protections to prevent the types of hazards that OSHA intended to prevent through its work-area control requirements. OSHA expects that all covered railroad equipment will comply with the FRA requirements and therefore be exempt from OSHA's work-area requirements.

    Sections 1926.1442(b)(3)(i) and (ii)—Out-of-Level Work Restriction Exemptions

    OSHA's crane standard generally prohibits out-of-level operation of cranes unless approved by the manufacturer. When the manufacturer has not already authorized out-of-level work, proposed § 1926.1442(b)(3) would allow out-of-level operation for all railroad equipment purchased before November 8, 2010, and for all other equipment under two conditions that would contain information collection requirements in some scenarios: (i) The manufacturer must approve or modify the equipment to allow out-of-level work, or an RPE qualified with respect to the particular equipment must approve the out-of-level work for the equipment; and (ii) the employer must abide by the limitations and other requirements specified by the manufacturer or the engineer, or by a load chart modified by a qualified person for the approved out-of-level work. Given the many unique areas of railroad work, in some cases a manufacturer or engineer might not have accounted for a particular activity that would require an additional adjustment to the load chart. OSHA included the option of allowing a qualified person to make additional adjustments to the load chart so that the employer would not need to stop work and locate an RPE every time an additional adjustment is necessary.

    Section 1926.1442(b)(6)(i)(A) and (b)(6)(i)(B)—Manufacturer Guidance for Modifications Covered by § 1926.1434 Exemptions

    Current section 1926.1434 requires employers to obtain and follow equipment manufacturer's guidance for equipment modifications except in certain circumstances. OSHA is proposing an exception that would simplify how a railroad employer may use modified equipment without involving the manufacturer but continuing to include safety assurances. Under proposed § 1926.1442(b)(6), an employer would be able to use modified railroad roadway maintenance equipment regardless of manufacturer guidance when several conditions are met. Specifically, under proposed § 1926.1442(b)(6)(i)(A) and § 1926.1442(b)(6)(i)(B), an RPE qualified with respect to the equipment must approve the procedure, modifications, addition, or repair; specify the equipment configurations described in the approval; and modify applicable procedures, load charts, manuals, instructions, plates, tags, and decals.

    Section 1926.1442(b)(7)—Other Manufacturer Guidance Exemption

    The proposed exemption in § 1926.1442(b)(7) would apply to several other sections of Subpart CC that require employers to follow manufacturer's guidance, instructions, procedures, prohibitions, limitations, or specifications. Those restrictions are found in §§ 1926.1404(j), (m), or (q); 1926.1417(a), (r), (u), or (aa); 1926.1433(d)(l)(i); and in 1926.1441. Under the proposed exemption, employers would be allowed to use roadway maintenance machines without regard for the manufacturer's listed restrictions if certain conditions are met. A number of these conditions contain information collection requirements. Proposed § 1926.1442(b)(7)(1) provides that an RPE familiar with the equipment must provide a written determination of the appropriate limitations for equipment use. Like the exemption in proposed § 1926.1442(b)(6) above, this exemption is intended to preserve existing use practices in the railroad industry while relying on the expertise of an RPE familiar with the equipment to ensure the safety of the equipment for departures from manufacturer guidance. The exemption also provides employers a means to operate safely in cases where obtaining manufacturer's approval is impossible, such as when the manufacturer no longer exists.

    3. Number of respondents: 210,626 (including 775 railroad establishments).

    4. Frequency of responses: Various.

    5. Number of responses: 3,045,098.

    6. Average time per response: Various.

    7. Estimated total burden hours: 436,701.

    8. Estimated cost (capital-operation and maintenance): $2,622.994.

    D. Submitting Comments

    In addition to submitting comments directly to the Agency, members of the public who wish to comment on the Agency's information-collection requirements in this proposal may send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the DOL-OSHA (RIN-1218-AD07), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. You may also submit comments to OMB by email at: [email protected] Please reference control number 1218-0261 in order to help ensure proper consideration. The Agency encourages commenters also to submit their comments related to the Agency's clarification of the information collection requirements to the rulemaking docket (Docket Number OSHA-2015-0012), along with their comments on other parts of the proposed rule. For instructions on submitting these comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal Register document titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

    A copy of the ICR for this proposal, with applicable supporting documentation: Including a description of the likely respondents, estimated frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov website at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201710-1218-003 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this document). Copies of these documents may also be obtained by contacting Mr. Vernon Preston, Directorate of Construction, OSHA, Room N-3427, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2020; email: [email protected]

    VII. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Generally, Executive Order 13132 allows preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.

    As discussed in more detail in the following section addressing State Plan States, under Section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as “State Plan States.” (29 U.S.C. 667). Occupational safety and health standards developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards.

    This proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking would not significantly limit State policy options.

    VIII. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent amendment to an existing standard, the 28 States and U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans (State-Plan States) must amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary (e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is already “at least as effective” as the new Federal standard or amendment. (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). The State standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule and the State must complete the standard within six months after the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard, State-Plan States are not required to amend their standards. The provisions in this proposal are exemptions from existing OSHA requirements and will reduce compliance burdens on employers, and as such OSHA does not view any of the proposed provisions as more stringent than the existing standard. Therefore, States and Territories with approved State Plans may adopt comparable amendments to their standards but are not required to do so. OSHA seeks comment on this assessment of its proposal.

    The 28 States and territories with OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to State and local government employees only.

    IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As discussed in section IV (“Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification”) of this proposed rule, the Agency determined that this proposed rule does not add new costs because the proposed changes are exemptions. However, because OSHA did not identify the cost to the railroad industry of the Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard, OSHA is identifying that cost now as part of this rulemaking. As OSHA explained in 2010, the total costs of the crane standard exceeded the threshold of $100 million per year and required additional analysis under the UMRA, which OSHA performed in 2010 (see 75 FR 48130). The $8.5 million in residual costs attributed to the railroad industry does not significantly impact the Agency's previous analysis, and the PEA for this rulemaking includes an additional analysis of the economic impact of the crane standard on the railroad industry.

    As noted under section VIII (“State Plans”) of this proposed rule, the Agency's standards do not impose any duties on State and local governments except in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the Agency. OSHA is not aware of any tribal governments that operate railroads using equipment that would be subject to this rulemaking, and the proposed changes create exceptions to the rule, not new duties. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a “Federal intergovernmental mandate” (see Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year.

    X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and determined that it does not have “tribal implications” as defined in that order. The final rule, if promulgated as proposed, would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

    XI. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health

    OSHA must consult with the ACCSH whenever the Agency proposes a rulemaking that involves the occupational safety and health of construction employees (29 CFR 1911.10, 1912.3). Accordingly, before the meeting date below, OSHA gave the ACCSH members a copy of the proposed revisions in this rulemaking as well as a brief summary and explanation of them. On December 1, 2016, ACCSH unanimously recommended that OSHA publish the proposal (see https://www.osha.gov/doc/accsh/meetingminutes/accsh_20161201.pdf).

    XII. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments and Access to the Docket

    OSHA invites comments on the proposed revisions described, and the specific issues raised, in this proposed rule. These comments should include supporting information and data. OSHA will carefully review and evaluate these comments, information, and data, as well as any other information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.

    When submitting comments, parties must follow the procedures specified in the previous sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The comments must provide the name of the commenter and docket number. The comments also should identify clearly the provision of the proposal each comment is addressing, the position taken with respect to the proposed provision or issue, and the basis for that position. Comments, along with supporting data and references, submitted on or before the end of the specified comment period will become part of the proceedings record, and will be available for public inspection and copying at http://www.regulations.gov.

    B. Requests for an Informal Public Hearing

    In accordance with section 6(b)(3) of the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of the public may request an informal public hearing by following the instructions under the section of this Federal Register document titled ADDRESSES. Hearing requests must include the name and address of the party requesting the hearing, and submitted (e.g., postmarked, transmitted, sent) on or before September 17, 2018. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction industry, Occupational safety and health, Railroad safety, Safety.

    Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation of this document pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 12, 2018. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Proposed Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated in the preamble above, OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1926 to read as follows:

    PART 1926—SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION Subpart CC—Cranes and Derricks in Construction 1. The authority citation for Subpart CC of 29 CFR part 1926 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; and Secretary of Labor's Orders 5-2007 (72 FR 31159) or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Amend § 1926.1400 by adding paragraph (c)(18) to read as follows:
    § 1926.1400 Scope.

    (c) * * *

    (18) Flash-butt welding trucks or other roadway maintenance machines which are not equipped with any hoisting device other than that used to suspend and move a welding device or workhead assembly. For purposes of this exclusion, the terms flash-butt welding truck and roadway maintenance machine refer to railroad equipment that meets the definition of “Roadway Maintenance Machine” in 49 CFR 214.7 and is used only for railroad track work.

    3. Redesignate § 1926.1442 as new § 1926.1443. 4. Add a new § 1926.1442 to read as follows:
    § 1926.1442 Railroad roadway maintenance machines.

    (a) For bridge construction work, employers using equipment covered by this Subpart CC of this part that meets the definition of “Roadway Maintenance Machine,” as defined in 49 CFR 214.7, must comply with all of the requirements in this Subpart CC of this part.

    (b) For construction work other than bridge construction, employers using equipment covered by Subpart CC of this part that meets the definition of “Roadway Maintenance Machine” must comply with the requirements in Subpart CC of this part, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this section:

    (1) Operator certification and training. The requirements in §§ 1926 .1427 (Operator qualification and certification) and 1926.1430 (Training) do not apply.

    (2) Rail clamps, rail stops, and work-area controls. (i) The requirement for rail clamps in § 1926.1415(a)(6) does not apply; except § 1926.1415(a)(6) applies when a manufacturer requires rail clamps, unless a registered professional engineer determines that rail clamps are not necessary;

    (ii) The requirement for rail stops in § 1926.1415(a)(6) does not apply; and

    (iii) The work-area controls specified by § 1926.1424(a)(2) do not apply when employers have implemented an on-track safety program that addresses work-area safety for the equipment and the Federal Railroad Administration approved the on-track safety program in accordance with 49 CFR 214.307(b).

    (3) Out-of-level work. The restrictions on out-of-level work (including the requirements in §§ 1926.1402(b), 1926.1412(d)(l)(xi), and 1926.1415(a)(l)), and the requirements for crane-level indicators and inspections of those indicators, do not apply when the employer uses equipment purchased before November 8, 2010, or when:

    (i) The manufacturer approves or modifies the equipment for out-of-level operation, or a registered professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to the equipment involved approves such out-of-level work; and

    (ii) The employer uses the equipment within limitations specified by the manufacturer or the registered professional engineer, or a qualified person modifies the load chart for such approved out-of-level work and the employer uses the equipment in accordance with that load chart.

    (4) Dragging a load sideways. The prohibition in § 1926.1417(q) on dragging a load sideways does not apply.

    (5) Boom-hoist limiting device. The requirement in § 1926.1416(d)(1) for a boom-hoist limiting device does not apply to Roadway Maintenance Machines when the cranes use hydraulic cylinders to raise the booms.

    (6) Manufacturer guidance for modifications covered by § 1926.1434. The requirements to follow the manufacturer's guidance set forth in § 1926.1434 do not apply when employers meet all of the following conditions:

    (i) A registered professional engineer who is a qualified person with respect to the equipment:

    (A) Approves the procedure, modification, addition, or repair, and specifies the equipment configurations to which that approval applies; and

    (B) Modifies load charts, procedures, instruction manuals, and instruction plates, tags, and decals, as appropriate.

    (ii) The employer uses the equipment in accordance with all of the engineer's specifications and modifications.

    (iii) The original safety factor of the equipment is not reduced below 1.7 for the structural boom, and 1.25 for stability, unless the original safety factor is lower.

    (7) Other manufacturer guidance. The requirements to follow the manufacturer's guidance, instructions, procedures, prohibitions, limitations, or specifications, set forth in §§ 1926.1404(j), (m), or (q); 1926.1417(a), (r), (u), or (aa); 1926.1433(d)(l)(i); or 1926.1441 do not apply when:

    (i) A registered professional engineer familiar with the type of equipment involved determines the appropriate limitations on the equipment in writing; and

    (ii) The employer does not exceed those limitations.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15285 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0619] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95 Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters near New Orleans, LA, during a fireworks display on October 6, 2018. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans 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 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0619 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Morgan, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 504-365-2281, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On May 9, 2018, Zito Company, LLC notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on October 6, 2018. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Lower Mississippi River at approximate mile marker (MM) 94.5, above Head of Passes, off Algiers Point, New Orleans, LA. Hazards from firework displays include discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display would be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the river.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within a one-mile stretch around the fireworks barge before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on October 6, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between MM 94 and MM 95, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.

    No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative would inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) as appropriate. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and short duration of the safety zone, which would impact a one-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. In addition, vessel traffic seeking to transit the area may seek permission from the COTP or his designated representative to do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry on one-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi 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 § 165.T08-0619 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0619 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Mile Markers 94 to 95, New Orleans, LA.

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

    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on October 6, 2018.

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

    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.

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

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

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Kristi M. Luttrell, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15439 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 [NPS-AKRO-25874; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000] RIN 1024-AE38 Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves—Extension of Public Comment Period AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves in Alaska. Extending the comment period for 45 days will allow more time for the public to review the proposal and submit comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23621), is extended. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024-AE38, by either of the following methods:

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

    Mail or hand deliver to: National Park Service, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.

    Instructions: Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or in any way other than those specified above. All submissions received must include the words “National Park Service” or “NPS” and must include the docket number or RIN (1024-AE38) for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter “1024-AE38” in the search box.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Herbert C. Frost, Regional Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501. Phone (907) 644-3510. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 22, 2018, the National Park Service (NPS) published in the Federal Register (83 FR 23621) a proposed rule to amend its regulations for sport hunting and trapping in National Preserves in Alaska. This proposed rule would remove a regulatory provision issued by the NPS in 2015 that prohibited certain sport hunting practices that are otherwise permitted by the State of Alaska. These proposed changes are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Orders 3347 and 3356. The public comment period for this proposal is scheduled to close on July 23, 2018. In order to give the public additional time to review and comment on the proposal, the NPS is extending the public comment period for 45 days until September 6, 2018. If you already commented on the proposed rule you do not have to resubmit your comments.

    P. Daniel Smith, Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15420 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0505; FRL-9981-01—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On October 20, 2015, the State of Oregon made a submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements. The EPA is proposing to approve the submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in any other state.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0505 at https://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 the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    Table of Contents I. What is the background of this SIP submission? II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission? III. The EPA's Review IV. What action is the EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    This rulemaking addresses a submission from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) assessing interstate transport requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises from section 110(a)(1) of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must submit within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof), a plan that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. The EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs.” Specifically, this rulemaking addresses the requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the “good neighbor” provision, which requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

    II. What guidance or information is the EPA using to evaluate this SIP submission?

    The most recent relevant document was a memorandum published on March 17, 2016, titled “Information on the Interstate Transport “Good Neighbor” Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” (memorandum). The memorandum describes the EPA's past approach to addressing interstate transport, and provides the EPA's general review of relevant modeling data and air quality projections as they relate to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The memorandum provides information relevant to the EPA regional office review of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “good neighbor” provision in infrastructure SIPs with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking considers information provided in that memorandum.

    The memorandum also provides states and the EPA regional offices with future year annual PM2.5 design values for monitors in the United States based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and air quality modeling. The memorandum describes how these projected potential design values can be used to help determine which monitors should be further evaluated to potentially address whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at those sites. The memorandum explains that the pertinent year for evaluating air quality for purposes of addressing interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is 2021, the attainment deadline for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as Moderate.

    Based on this approach, the potential receptors are outlined in the memorandum. Most of the potential receptors are in California, located in the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas. However, there is also one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, and one potential receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The memorandum also indicates that for certain states with incomplete ambient monitoring data, additional information including the latest available data should be analyzed to determine whether there are potential downwind air quality problems that may be impacted by transported emissions.

    This rulemaking considers analysis in Oregon's submission, as well as additional analysis conducted by the EPA during review of its submission. For more information on how we conducted our analysis, please see the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.

    III. The EPA's Review

    This rulemaking proposes action on Oregon's October 20, 2015, SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). State plans must address specific requirements of the good neighbor provisions (commonly referred to as “prongs”), including:

    —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong one); and —Prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong two).

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in several previous federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the relevant NAAQS; (2) identifying which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems, identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS downwind, reducing the identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and enforceable measures. This framework was applied with respect to PM2.5 in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), designed to address both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, as well as the 1997 ozone standard.1

    1 Oregon was not part of the CSAPR rulemaking. The EPA approved the Oregon SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33650) and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2313).

    In its submission, ODEQ reviewed air quality monitoring data for several surrounding western states to identify potential downwind receptors that may have problems attaining or maintaining the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. ODEQ then reviewed geographical distance, topography, meteorology (local stagnation events), air monitoring trends, industrial source emissions near the state border, and Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) modeling to determine if emissions from Oregon may impact these specific areas. From this analysis and consultation with neighboring state air agencies, ODEQ concluded that Oregon does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

    As discussed in the TSD for this action, we came to the same conclusion as the state. In our evaluation, potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors were identified in other states. The EPA evaluated these potential receptors to determine first if, based on review of relevant data and other information, there would be downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems, and if so, whether Oregon contributes to such problems in these areas. After reviewing air quality reports, modeling results, designation letters, designation technical support documents, attainment plans and other information for these areas, we find there is no contribution sufficient to warrant additional SIP measures. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve ODEQ's October 20, 2015, submission certifying that the Oregon SIP is sufficient to meet the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set forth above. The EPA is requesting comments on the proposed approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 3, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15353 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 74 [MB Docket No. 18-119; DA 18-669] FM Translator Interference: Media Bureau Grants Extension of Time To File Comments and Reply Comments AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that the Media Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission granted the Motion for Extension of Time to extend the comment and reply comment deadlines, filed by Beasley Media Group, LLC; Educational Media Foundation; Gradick Communications, LLC; iHeart Communications, Inc.; Neuhoff Corp.; Radio One Licenses, LLC/Urban One, Inc.; and Withers Broadcasting Companies (Petitioners), in MB Docket 18-119.

    DATES:

    Comments may be filed on or before August 6, 2018, and reply comments may be filed on or before September 5, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 18-119, FCC 18-60, adopted May 10, 2018, and released May 10, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2721; James Bradshaw, Deputy Division Chief, Media Bureau (202) 418-2739. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Order, DA 18-669, adopted June 27, 2018, and released June 27, 2018. Petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking to extend the deadlines to file comments and reply comments to August 6, 2018, and September 5, 2018, respectively, in FM Translator Interference, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 18-119, FCC 18-60 (rel. May 10, 2018), 83 FR 26229, June 6, 2018. For good cause shown, the Media Bureau, pursuant to delegated authority, granted the request. Comments were originally due July 6, 2018, and reply comments on August 6, 2018. Grant of the request makes comments due on August 6, 2018, and reply comments due on September 5, 2018. This proceeding is treated as “permit but disclose” for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.200-1.216. As a result of the permit but disclose status of this proceeding, ex parte presentations will be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules applicable to non-restricted proceedings.

    The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://https://www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Federal Communications Commission. James Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15275 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 139 Thursday, July 19, 2018 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Meeting: Board for International Food and Agricultural Development

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of the public meeting of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD). The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, August 8, 2018, at the Madison A&B on the Mezzanine Level, Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Rd. NW, Washington, DC. Participants may attend in person or join via livestream. The link to the global live stream as well as registration information can be found on BIFAD's home page: http://www.usaid.gov/bifad.

    The central theme of this public meeting will be US Benefits Leveraged from Strategic Investments in Developing Country Agriculture and Food Security. Dr. Mark Keenum, BIFAD Chair, will preside over the public business meeting, which will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. ET with opening remarks. At this meeting the Board will address old and new business, and then invite Agricultural & Applied Economics Association members and other interested individuals to engage in a dialogue and provide feedback on a new study that is being commissioned by BIFAD and USAID. This study will conduct a meta-analysis of US benefits and capabilities that are leveraged from strategic investments in developing country agriculture and food security. Presenting at the meeting is Dr. Joseph Glauber, Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), who is leading the study for BIFAD. Dr. Glauber served over 30 years at the US Department of Agriculture, including as Chief Economist from 2008 to 2014.

    Beginning at 11:15 a.m. ET, Chairman Keenum will moderate a half-hour public comment period. The public meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m. ET with Dr. Keenum's closing remarks.

    Those wishing to attend the meeting or obtain additional information about BIFAD should contact Clara Cohen, Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD in the Bureau for Food Security at USAID. Interested persons may write to her in care of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, Bureau for Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20523-2110 or telephone her at (202) 712-0119.

    Clara Cohen, Designated Federal Officer, BIFAD, Bureau for Food Security, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15413 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot AGENCY:

    Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Farm Service Agency (FSA), on behalf of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), is announcing the availability of competitive grants to conduct a forest inventory analysis, forest management, and economic outcomes modelling, for certain currently enrolled Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land. The analysis is focused on lands enrolled in CRP for at least 8 years and located in areas with a substantial concentration of acres enrolled under the following conservation practices devoted to multiple bottomland hardwood tree species: General tree planting, hardwood tree planting, vegetative cover on previously established tree stands, riparian buffers, bottomland timber establishments, and farmable and aquaculture wetlands. Qualified applicants must be non-profit organizations dedicated to conservation, forestry, and wildlife habitats that have experience in conducting accurate forest inventory analysis through the use of advanced, cost-effective technology, as determined by FSA.

    DATES:

    Application Deadline: August 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications must be submitted in the following method: Grants Portal: Go to www.grants.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting grants.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Iovanna, telephone (202) 720-5291.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 743 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) requires that the USDA enter into grant agreements for forest inventory analysis, and forest management, and economic outcomes modelling of certain CRP land. Under this authority, the CCC will make available not more than $1 million in grants to non-profit organizations. The CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot will be administered under the general supervision of FSA on behalf of CCC, in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR part 200.

    Description

    The CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot is focused on lands enrolled in CRP for at least 8 years and located in areas with a substantial concentration of acres enrolled under certain conservation practices devoted to multiple bottomland hardwood tree species, including conservation practices for general tree planting, hardwood tree planting, vegetative cover on previously established tree stands, riparian buffers, bottomland timber establishments, and farmable and aquaculture wetlands. Qualified applicants must be non-profit organizations dedicated to conservation, forestry, and wildlife habitats that have experience in conducting accurate forest inventory analysis through the use of advanced, cost-effective technology.

    Comprehensive data analysis using advanced, cost-effective technology on land enrolled in CRP with certain bottomland hardwood practices is important for several reasons. Such data will provide the FSA CRP program manager with the information needed to more effectively manage enrollment. For example, the inventory may find that mortality of a selected species of tree is high in certain situations. As a result, the CRP program manager may adjust what tree species can be enrolled in CRP on a regional and site-specific basis. Economic modeling will provide information on the expected net returns to CRP enrollees, as well as an evaluation of taxpayer costs. In short, there is a need for data collection and analysis of bottomland hardwood conservation practices and economics.

    For more than 30 years under CRP, landowners have voluntarily enrolled tens of millions of farmland acres to conserve and improve soil, protect water quality, and provide wildlife habitat by establishing long-term cover, primarily grasses and trees. Landowners voluntarily enroll their lands for periods of between 10 and 15 years.

    CRP cost share funding is provided to landowners who install the prescribed conservation practices. These practices can be costly and require ample investment by the landowner and technical assistance provider to ensure that the practices are appropriate and properly installed. The adequacy of the conservation plan is paramount to achieving CRP enrollment goals, especially for bottomland hardwoods.

    Bottomland hardwoods are streamside forest trees—such as cottonwood, sycamore, oak, maple, ash, cypress, and tupelo—that typically grow on lands prone to flooding. Over the past 8 years, 46 States have enrolled land into CRP that is devoted to bottomland hardwood trees. Cumulative CRP bottomland hardwood tree enrollment, over the past 8 years, is just over 799,000 acres, with over 550,000 acres (69 percent) located in the States shown in Table 1.

    Table 1—Tree Enrollment in CRP by State Over the Past 8 Years; USDA May 31, 2018 State Total CRP tree acres Cumulative acres Acres of total percent Region Mississippi 204,870 204,870 26 Southern Forest. Arkansas 79,341 284,211 36 Southern Forest. Louisiana 75,087 359,298 45 Southern Forest. Alabama 58,035 417,333 52 Southeast Forest. Illinois 47,824 465,156 58 Midwest Forest. Georgia 35,212 500,369 63 Southeast Forest. North Carolina 26,942 527,310 66 Southeast Forest. Minnesota 24,346 551,674 69 Northern Forest.

    The CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot is intended to provide information and analysis needed to better inform CRP decision making associated with the following bottomland hardwood conservation and stand maintenance practices:

    1. CP03—Tree Planting;

    2. CP03A—Hardwood Tree Planting;

    3. CP11—Vegetative Cover—Trees Already Established; 1

    1 The purpose of the CP11 practice is to maintain a stand of trees in a timber planting previously established on cropland as practice CP-3 or CP-3A to enhance environmental benefits. This CP11 practice was available only through a re-offer of expiring or expired CRP acres.

    4. CP22—Riparian Buffer;

    5. CP31—Bottomland Timber Establishment; and

    6. CP40—Farmable Wetland Program—Aquaculture Wetland.

    The inventory, analysis, and modeling must estimate, at a minimum, stand composition, stand density, basal area, and tree height using remotely sensed data (rather than data collected by visiting a site). The data will be used to generate statistically robust estimates of commercial value, economic returns, carbon sequestration, and wildlife and water quality impacts for each of the practices in at least one of the regions and states enumerated in Table 1. These estimates will identify species appropriate for bottomland CRP practices or sites, as well as forest management practices needed to maintain cover during the contract period. An accurate assessment of the model output will be conducted using ground plots.

    Definitions

    The 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act uses the term “non-profit organizations.” Consistent with OMB Circular A-122, the term “non-profit organization” means any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that:

    1. Is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public interest;

    2. Is not organized primarily for profit; and

    3. Uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand its operations.

    The term “non-profit organization” excludes:

    1. Colleges and universities, unless a 501(c)(3) has been established;

    2. Hospitals;

    3. State, local, and federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; and

    4. Those non-profit organizations that are excluded from coverage under paragraph 5 of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122.

    The term “economic outcomes modelling” as used in this NOFA, must include multiple dimensions, including, but not limited to, baseline return estimates to CRP participants (taking into account, among other items, commercial value), and returns under alternative scenarios that reflect management recommendations.

    Eligibility and Application Process

    Non-profit organizations dedicated to conservation, forestry, and wildlife habitats, that have experience in conducting forest inventory analysis through the use of remote sensing data and technology are eligible to apply. Applicants must submit an application by August 15, 2018, through www.grants.gov. To find the CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot in www.grants.gov, search on funding opportunity number USDA-FSA-CRPFIA-2018. Applications must include, but are not limited to, an executive summary, work plan, and budget information using Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) form. (See www.grants.gov for more details about the specific application requirements.)

    Non-profit organizations may submit a combined cross-organization proposal to include work that will be coordinated across more than one organization, especially if a joint proposal creates synergies or increased efficiencies. The application may include one or more forest regions.

    The result of a successful application will be a one-time grant agreement. Successful applicants will be required to sign the grant agreement with FSA, which will include reporting and recordkeeping requirements. It is possible that not all of the $1 million authorized by Congress for this pilot will be expended. All applications are subject to the approval of FSA, and FSA reserves the right to reject any and all applications.

    Application Selection Criteria

    FSA will evaluate applications using the evaluation criteria specified in this NOFA and on www.grants.gov to select the application(s) that best support the goals of CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot. A proposal must include the following information; this information will be used by FSA in the awarding of grants:

    1. Amount of funding requested;

    2. Amount of funding from other parties (with sufficient documentation) that provide additional leverage, if any; for example, specifying the regions, states, practices and plots where the proposal goes beyond minimal requirements (such as by considering CP-36, long-leaf pine);

    3. Sampling approach to be used;

    4. Remotely sensed data to be used, including its sources and its spatial, temporal, and spectral resolution;

    5. Number and relevance of metrics to be estimated and the modeling approach to be used to estimate the metrics;

    6. The accuracy assessment, including sampling approach and location of ground plots following the U.S. Forest Service's Common Stand Examination protocols or those in the peer-reviewed literature; and

    7. Work plan and timeline for completion by September 30, 2020.

    Process for Evaluation and Application and Awards of Grants

    After applicants submit applications, FSA, on behalf of CCC, will screen each application to determine whether the applicant is eligible and whether the application is complete and sufficiently responsive to the requirements specified in this NOFA. Applicants may revise their applications and re-submit them prior to the published deadline if there is sufficient time to do so. FSA will appoint an inter-agency review panel to evaluate the applications. During the evaluation period, FSA may contact an applicant to seek clarification and modification of the proposal. The resulting CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot grant agreements will be between the non-profit organization(s) and FSA.

    Any non-profit organization that receives a grant must commit to fully expend the awarded federal funds by September 30, 2020, with an opportunity for extension upon approval by FSA.

    Responsibilities of the Participants

    Successful applicants will be required to sign an agreement with FSA and provide detailed budget and schedule information. The agreement will require periodic achievement reports. The agreement will require the grantee to commit to do all of the following:

    1. Perform inventory, analysis, modelling and validating, including conducting site visits and plot sampling, on the CRP enrolled acreage; and

    2. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee.

    During the term of the grant, the grantee will be required to obtain prior approval for any changes to the scope, objectives, or funding allocation of the approved agreement. Failure to obtain prior approval of such changes may be considered a violation, and in such case the grantee may be required to return all grant funds, including any funds already expended, as determined appropriate by FSA. Grantees will be required to monitor funds and report on expenditures. The grantee must certify that the CCC funds will not be used to:

    1. Duplicate existing inventories, analysis, or economic modelling efforts; however, grant funds may be used to expand the prior inventories, analysis, or economic modelling efforts;

    2. Pay costs of preparing a CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot grant application;

    3. Pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;

    4. Fund political activities or lobbying efforts;

    5. Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

    6. Pay for the repair of privately owned vehicles;

    7. Pay for unrelated salaries, overhead, and expenses; or

    8. Pay for unrelated research.

    Failure of the grantee to execute a grant agreement in a timely fashion, as determined by FSA, will be construed to be a withdrawal from the CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot. In this event, FSA will demand a refund of the grant funds as deemed appropriate by FSA.

    Distribution of Grant Funds and Reimbursement of Unused Funds

    FSA expects to transfer CCC funds to the selected non-profit organization applicants before September 30, 2018.

    Environmental Review

    The environmental impacts of this NOFA have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

    The purpose of the grants for the CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot is to provide the CRP Program Manager with information to inform decision-making about the effectiveness of certain conservation practices on CRP land for bottomland hardwoods and are passive in nature and will not involve ground disturbance or tree removals or disturbance. The discretionary aspects of the CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot include, but are not limited to, eligibility, how many grants to award, and how to evaluate submissions. As such, the Categorical Exclusions in 7 CFR 799.31 apply, specifically 7 CFR 799.31(b)(6)(vii) and (viii) (these two categorical exclusions include site characterization, environmental testing, and monitoring where no significant alteration of existing ambient conditions would occur; and, stand analysis for forest management planning, respectively). No “Extraordinary circumstances” (7 CFR 799.33) exist; as such, FSA has determined that this NOFA does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, beyond this Environmental Review in this NOFA, FSA will not prepare any additional environmental documentation for this action.

    Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements

    The CRP Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot is exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as amended, as specified in subsection 1601(c)(2)(B) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill, 16 U.S.C. 3846(b)), which provides that CRP, as a Title II program, be promulgated and administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The title and number of the Federal assistance in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this NOFA applies is 10.122, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Forest Inventory Analysis Pilot.

    Richard Fordyce, Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15349 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0021] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: (Consumer Research on the Safe Handling Instructions Label for Raw and Partially Cooked Meat and Poultry Products and Labeling Statements for Ready-to-Eat and Not-Ready-to-Eat Products) AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to collect information in the form of consumer research that will include a web-based experimental study and a behavior change study to help inform potential revisions to the current Safe Handling Instructions (SHI) label and assess whether a label revision would improve consumer food safety behaviors. FSIS also will collect information on consumer use and understanding of the labeling on ready-to-eat (RTE) and not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) meat and poultry products, in particular consumers' ability to discern between the two types of products and to ensure that NRTE products that may appear to be ready to eat are thoroughly cooked.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this Federal Register notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2018-0021. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, call (202) 720-5627 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Consumer Research on the Safe Handling Instructions Label for Raw and Partially Cooked Meat and Poultry Products and Labeling Statements for Ready-to-Eat and Not-Ready-to-Eat Products.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: Safe handling instructions are required on the labels of raw or partially-cooked (i.e., not considered RTE) meat and poultry products, if the product is destined for household consumers or institutional uses (9 CFR 317.2(l) and 9 CFR 381.125(b)). FSIS first required the SHI label for raw and partially cooked meat and poultry products in 1994 (54 FR 14528). Since that time, the required design of the SHI label has not been changed.

    When the SHI label was developed in 1994, the minimal internal temperature requirements for determining whether a meat or poultry product was cooked enough to be safe varied by product. Given this, as well as product and label size limitations, FSIS concluded that “Cook Thoroughly” was the only simple, single statement appropriate to use for all products (54 FR 14538). FSIS now recommends on its website four internal minimal temperatures: One for all poultry (165 °F), one for ground meat (160 °F), one for all whole-muscle meat (145 °F and hold for 3 minutes), and one for fish (145 °F). With only four temperature recommendations, the information could be more easily incorporated into the SHI requirements. Other possible changes to the SHI label include incorporating updated icons and providing a web link or phone number for more information.

    In response to inquiries from consumer groups and other stakeholders about potential changes to SHI requirements, FSIS gathered input from members of academia, industry, and consumer stakeholders in November 2013. FSIS presented these suggestions to the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) in January 2014. The NACMPI Subcommittee on Food Handling Labels recommended that FSIS pursue changes in the existing SHI label and conduct consumer research to determine the effectiveness of any revisions to the SHI label.

    In 2015, FSIS conducted six consumer focus groups (OMB No. 0583-0166; 11/30/2017) to evaluate understanding of the current SHI label and responses to possible revisions. The focus groups revealed that consumers would find certain revisions to the SHI label useful. Participants suggested changes to improve comprehension and adherence to recommended safe handling practices (e.g., add recommendations to use a food thermometer and endpoint temperatures for different cuts of meat and poultry). Based on the results of these focus groups, FSIS determined that additional research using more rigorous, quantitative approaches with a larger sample of consumers was needed to help inform potential revisions to the current SHI label and assess whether a label revision would improve consumer food safety behaviors.

    In addition, during the March 2016 NACMPI meeting, the national advisory committee reviewed and discussed whether FSIS should pursue proposing mandatory features on the label of processed NRTE products that may appear to be fully cooked (e.g., are breaded or have grill marks). The committee recommended that FSIS require statements, such as “Raw, “Uncooked,” or “Ready to Cook,” on the labels of raw products that may appear RTE, so it is clear that these products require cooking to a proper internal temperature before eating. The committee also recommended that FSIS conduct consumer research to understand the optimal messaging and design of packaging to ensure consumers properly understand that NRTE products that may appear to be fully cooked need to be cooked for lethality. The committee stated that such labeling may help consumers properly distinguish between NRTE products, which require a lethality step, and RTE products, which do not require a lethality step; thus, the committee stated that this labeling may help consumers safely prepare NRTE products. Specifically, the committee suggested that FSIS conduct consumer research to evaluate the effectiveness of possible locations for point of purchase labeling information and various color options, font, and other display options. FSIS has not previously conducted research on this topic.

    To assess whether revisions are needed to the SHI label required on all raw and partially cooked products and to evaluate the ability of consumers to properly discern between NRTE and RTE products and how labeling for these products can be improved, FSIS is requesting approval for a new information collection to conduct consumer behavior research. This research will include a web-based experimental study, as well as a behavior change study, which includes three components: An observational meal preparation experiment, an eye-tracking study, and in-depth interviews (IDIs). The research will help inform potential revisions to the current SHI label and assess whether a label revision would be likely to improve consumer behaviors related to safely preparing raw and partially cooked meat and poultry products. The study will also collect information on consumer use and understanding of labeling for RTE and NRTE meat and poultry products.

    FSIS has contracted with RTI International to conduct the web-based experimental study and the behavior change study. For the web-based experimental study, a selected sample of online consumer panel members will be invited to participate in the study via email. Inbound sampling will be used to select a sample of respondents with demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education level, race, and ethnicity) similar to the U.S. population. The primary aim of the web-based experimental study is to test 25 mock SHI labels that vary by visual design elements (e.g., borders, white space, spatial arrangement) to determine which labels are most salient to consumers. Label salience (i.e., participants' degree of attention to the label) will be assessed using a limited-time exposure approach with cued recall questions. Secondary aims of the study include assessing comprehension of safe handling instructions and safe handling icons and measuring the participants' motivation to comply with safe handling messages. The data from the experimental study will be analyzed to identify the five SHI labels that best attract respondents' attention, and from these, three labels will be selected for further testing in the behavior change study.

    To assess and compare consumer behavior in response to the current SHI label (control) and the three alternative SHI labels, a behavior change study will be conducted in test kitchen facilities located in four different locations (one in each of four Census regions). Participants will be recruited using convenience sampling (e.g., by posting ads on social media). The study will ensure a diverse sample of participants with respect to race, ethnicity, age, education level, and presence of a child (0-17 years) in the household. The study will use a fully randomized experimental design with participants randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (that will be used to assess three alternative SHIs) or a control group (that will be used to assess the current SHI). Participants will be given recipes and ingredients, including two raw meat products bearing the assigned SHI label and asked to prepare two meat dishes and a salad. To assess attention to the SHI label during meal preparation, participants will wear a mobile eye-tracking device. Research staff will video-record meal preparation and clean-up. Trained researchers will subsequently view the videos and use a coding rubric to assess adherence to the recommended safe handling instructions (e.g., washing hands before meal preparation and after touching raw meat). Statistical analysis comparing the differences in handling behavior scores between the control (current SHI label) and treatment groups will be conducted to identify the label that may most effectively lead to participants' following the safe handling practices on the label.

    Following meal preparation, participants will be directed to examine each of six mock meat and poultry products (i.e., stimuli) while wearing the eye-tracking device: Two RTE products, two NRTE products that appear ready to eat, and two raw products. Participants will be asked to complete a series of search tasks to determine which version of the SHI label (three treatment versions or the current label) is most often attended to on a meat and poultry package and to assess whether participants can properly distinguish between RTE and NRTE products that appear to be ready to eat. Eye-tracking metrics for each area of interest (AOI), including total time spent viewing each AOI, will be produced and used in statistical analyses to determine the label that best captures participants' attention.

    Lastly, participants will take part in an IDI and be asked debriefing questions regarding the meal preparation experiment and questions to understand how consumers determine whether a meat or poultry product needs to be cooked before eating it. The data will be analyzed by analysts using a thematic content analysis approach.

    Estimate of Burden: For the pretest for the web-based experimental study, it is expected that 1,700 individuals will receive email invitations to complete the study and that 100 will be eligible and subsequently complete the study. For the web-based experimental study, it is expected that 70,000 individuals will receive email invitations to complete the study and that 3,600 will be eligible and subsequently complete the study. The invitation email for the pretest and the full-scale study is expected to take 2 minutes to read (0.033 hour). The survey is expected to take 20 minutes to complete. The total estimated burden of the web-based experimental study is 3,623.3 hours.

    For the behavior change study, it is expected that 1,695 individuals will complete the screener and that 565 will be eligible and subsequently be contacted by phone to schedule an appointment. Of these, it is assumed that 480 will take part in the study. Each screening is expected to take 8 minutes (0.133 hour). It is expected to take 7 minutes (0.117 hour) to read or listen to each appointment call/confirmation email/reminder call. It is expected to take 10 minutes (0.167 hour) to read the informed consent form and watch the instructional video. Taking part in the behavior change study will take a total of 140 minutes (2.333 hours), which includes an observational meal preparation experiment (80 minutes), an eye-tracking component (30 minutes), and IDIs (30 minutes). The estimated annual reporting burden for the behavior change study is 1,491.9 hours, which is the sum of the burden estimates for each component of the study (including the burden for individuals who initially complete the screener but are not eligible or do not agree to participate).

    For all components of the information collection, the estimated total number of individuals to be screened is 73,395, and the estimated total number of individuals to complete the web-based experimental study, including pretest, and the behavior change study is 4,180. The estimated total burden for the information collection is 5,115.2 hours.

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for the Web-Based Experimental Study and the Behavior Change Study Study component Estimated
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • frequency
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per response Total hours
    Web-Based Experimental Study Pretest invitation 1,700 1 1,700 0.033 (2 min.) 56.7 Pretest 100 1 100 0.333 (20 min.) 33.3 Survey invitation 70,000 1 70,000 0.033 (2 min.) 2,333.3 Survey 3,600 1 3,600 0.333 (20 min.) 1,200.0 Total 3,623.3 Behavior Change Study Screening questionnaire 1,695 1 1,695 0.133 (8 min.) 226.0 Appointment phone script, confirmation email, reminder phone script 565 1 565 0.117 (7 min.) 65.9 Consent form and video 480 1 480 0.167 (10 min.) 80.0 Meal Preparation, eye-tracking & in-depth interviews 480 1 480 2.333 (140 min.) 1,120.0 Total 1,491.9 Total 5,115.2

    Respondents: Consumers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 73,395.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 5,115.2 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    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.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected].

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15462 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2018-0020] Notice of Request for a New Information Collection: Food Defense Vulnerability Questionnaire AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to collect information from food industry and academic experts on vulnerabilities and research activities related to food defense for FSIS-regulated food products. The purpose of this information collection is to inform FSIS food defense efforts to help protect against an intentional attack on the food supply.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this Federal Register notice. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2018-0020. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, call (202) 720-5627 to schedule a time to visit the FSIS Docket Room at 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Food Defense Vulnerability Questionnaire

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.) and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031, et seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged.

    FSIS's Office of Data Integration and Food Protection (ODIFP) develops, maintains, and coordinates all FSIS activities to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant incidents resulting from intentional contamination or deliberate acts of terrorism and other significant incidents affecting meat, poultry, and processed egg products. Food defense is the protection of food products from intentional contamination intended to harm public health or cause economic disruption. As part of ODIFP, the Food Defense Assessment Staff works with government agencies, industry, and other organizations to develop and implement strategies to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from intentional contamination of the food supply. FSIS food defense activities are guided by national policies and directives, including Homeland Security Presidential Directive Nine, which requires USDA to perform vulnerability assessments of the food system and update these vulnerability assessments every two years.

    FSIS strives to continually assess current food defense vulnerabilities, identify new food defense vulnerabilities, and remain aware of current and planned food defense research efforts. In order to help inform FSIS food defense activities and help protect against an intentional attack on the food supply, FSIS will administer a series of questionnaires to food industry and academic experts on vulnerabilities and research activities in the area of food defense for FSIS-regulated food products.

    The first questionnaire will be conducted in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, and the second and third questionnaires will be conducted in FY 2020 and FY 2021 respectively. The questionnaire will be administered to approximately 170 food industry and academic experts each fiscal year (FY 2019, FY 2020, and FY 2021).

    The results from the FY 2019 questionnaire will inform FSIS's food defense activities, including vulnerability assessment efforts.

    Estimate of Burden:

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for the FY 2019 Questionnaire Respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Participation time Burden
  • (hours)
  • Food industry and academic experts 170 40 minutes 113.3

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for the FY 2020 Questionnaire Respondents Number of

  • respondents
  • Participation time Burden
  • (hours)
  • Food industry and academic experts 170 40 minutes 113.3

    Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for the FY 2021 Questionnaire Respondents Number of

  • respondents
  • Participation time Burden
  • (hours)
  • Food industry and academic experts 170 40 minutes 113.3

    Respondents: Food Industry and Academic Experts.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 510.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 340 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    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.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Paul Kiecker, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15461 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payments, the amount of money the Federal Government provides States for lunches, afterschool snacks, and breakfasts served to children participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; to the maximum reimbursement rates, the maximum per lunch rate from Federal funds that a State can provide a school food authority for lunches served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program; and to the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. The annual payments and rates adjustments for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs reflect changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The annual rate adjustment for the Special Milk Program reflects changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect higher costs of providing meals in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The payments and rates are prescribed on an annual basis each July.

    DATES:

    These rates are effective from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Saracino, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, VA 22302-1594.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Special Milk Program for Children—Pursuant to section 3 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1772), the Department announces the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to non-needy children in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program for Children. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

    National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs—Pursuant to sections 11 and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (42 U.S.C. 1759a and 1766a), and section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), the Department annually announces the adjustments to the National Average Payment Factors and to the maximum Federal reimbursement rates for lunches and afterschool snacks served to children participating in the National School Lunch Program and breakfasts served to children participating in the School Breakfast Program. Adjustments are prescribed each July 1, based on changes in the Food Away From Home series of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.

    Lunch Payment Levels—Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753) provides general cash for food assistance payments to States to assist schools in purchasing food. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act provides two different section 4 payment levels for lunches served under the National School Lunch Program. The lower payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which less than 60 percent of the lunches served in the school lunch program during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price. The higher payment level applies to lunches served by school food authorities in which 60 percent or more of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.

    To supplement these section 4 payments, section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759(a)) provides special cash assistance payments to aid schools in providing free and reduced price lunches. The section 11 National Average Payment Factor for each reduced price lunch served is set at 40 cents less than the factor for each free lunch.

    As authorized under sections 8 and 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1757 and 1759a), maximum reimbursement rates for each type of lunch are prescribed by the Department in this Notice. These maximum rates are to ensure equitable disbursement of Federal funds to school food authorities.

    Performanced-Based Reimbursement—In addition to the funding mentioned above, school food authorized certified as meeting the meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements set forth in 7 CFR 210 and 220 are eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional six cents per lunch available beginning October 1, 2012, and adjusted annually thereafter).

    Afterschool Snack Payments in Afterschool Care Programs—Section 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766a) establishes National Average Payments for free, reduced price and paid afterschool snacks as part of the National School Lunch Program.

    Breakfast Payment Factors—Section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) establishes National Average Payment Factors for free, reduced price, and paid breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program and additional payments for free and reduced price breakfasts served in schools determined to be in “severe need” because they serve a high percentage of needy children.

    Adjusted Payments

    The following specific section 4, section 11, and section 17A National Average Payment Factors and maximum reimbursement rates for lunch, the afterschool snack rates, and the breakfast rates are in effect from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Due to a higher cost of living, the average payments and maximum reimbursements for Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which schools receive as additional assistance for each meal served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register.

    Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all lunches served under the National School Lunch Program, breakfasts served under the School Breakfast Program, and afterschool snacks served under the National School Lunch Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

    Special Milk Program Payments

    For the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019, the rate of reimbursement for a half-pint of milk served to a non-needy child in a school or institution that participates in the Special Milk Program is 20.50 cents reflecting a decrease of 0.25 cents from the School Year (SY) 2017-2018 level.This change is based on the 0.22 percent decrease in the Producer Price Index for Fluid Milk Products from May 2017 to May 2018.

    As a reminder, schools or institutions with pricing programs that elect to serve milk free to eligible children continue to receive the average cost of a half-pint of milk (the total cost of all milk purchased during the claim period divided by the total number of purchased half-pints) for each half-pint served to an eligible child.

    National School Lunch Program Payments

    Overall, payments for the National School Lunch Program and the Afterschool Snack Program either remained the same or increased from last years payments due to a 2.68 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers during the 12-month period May 2017 to May 2018 (from a level of 268.128 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register to 275.307 in May 2018).

    These changes are reflected below.

    Section 4 National Average Payment Factors—In school food authorities that served less than 60 percent free and reduced price lunches in School Year (SY) 2016-2017, the payments for meals served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—31 cents (no change from the SY 2017-2018 level), free and reduced price rate—31 cents (no change), maximum rate—39 cents (no change); Alaska—paid rate—51 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—51 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—61 cents (no change); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—paid rate—37 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—37 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—45 cents (no change).

    In school food authorities that served 60 percent or more free and reduced price lunches in School Year 2016-2017, payments are: Contiguous States—paid rate—33 cents (no change from the SY 2017-2018 level), free and reduced price rate—33 cents (no change), maximum rate—39 cents (no change); Alaska—paid rate—53 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—53 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—61 cents (no change); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—paid rate—39 cents (1 cent increase), free and reduced price rate—39 cents (1 cent increase), maximum rate—45 cents (no change).

    School food authorities certified to receive the performance-based cash assistance will receive an additional 6 cents (adjusted annually) added to the above amounts as part of their section 4 payments.

    Section 11 National Average Payment FactorsContiguous States—free lunch—3 dollars (8 cents increase from the SY 2017-2018 level), reduced price lunch—2 dollars and 60 cents (8 cents increase); Alaska—free lunch—4 dollars and 87 cents (13 cents increase), reduced price lunch—4 dollars and 47 cents (13 cents increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—free lunch—3 dollars and 51 cents (9 cents increase), reduced price lunch—3 dollars and 11 cents (9 cents increase).

    Afterschool Snacks in Afterschool Care Programs—The payments are: Contiguous States—free snack—91 cents (3 cents increase from the SY 2017-2018 level), reduced price snack—45 cents (1 cent increase), paid snack—8 cents (no change); Alaska—free snack—1 dollar and 48 cents (4 cents increase), reduced price snack—74 cents (2 cents increase), paid snack—13 cents (no change); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—free snack—1 dollar and 6 cents (2 cents increase), reduced price snack—53 cents (1 cent increase), paid snack—9 cents (no change).

    School Breakfast Program Payments

    Overall, payments for the National School Breakfast Program either remained the same or increased from last years payments due to a 2.68 percent increase in the national average payment rates for schools and residential child care institutions for the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers during the 12-month period May 2017 to May 2018 (from a level of 268.128 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register to 275.307 in May 2018).

    These changes are reflected below.

    For schools “not in severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States—free breakfast—1 dollar and 79 cents (4 cents increase from the SY 2017-2018 level), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 49 cents (4 cents increase), paid breakfast—31 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—free breakfast—2 dollars and 87 cents (8 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 57 cents (8 cents increase), paid breakfast—46 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—free breakfast—2 dollars and 9 cents (6 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 79 cents (6 cents increase), paid breakfast—35 cents (1 cent increase).

    For schools in “severe need” the payments are: Contiguous States—free breakfast—2 dollars and 14 cents (5 cents increase from the SY 2017-2018 level), reduced price breakfast—1 dollar and 84 cents (5 cents increase), paid breakfast—31 cents (1 cent increase); Alaska—free breakfast—3 dollars and 43 cents (8 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—3 dollars and 13 cents (8 cents increase), paid breakfast—46 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii and Puerto Rico—free breakfast—2 dollars and 50 cents (7 cents increase), reduced price breakfast—2 dollars and 20 cents (7 cents increase), paid breakfast—35 cents (1 cent increase).

    Payment Chart

    The following chart illustrates the lunch National Average Payment Factors with the sections 4 and 11 already combined to indicate the per lunch amount; the maximum lunch reimbursement rates; the reimbursement rates for afterschool snacks served in afterschool care programs; the breakfast National Average Payment Factors including severe need schools; and the milk reimbursement rate. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. The payment factors and reimbursement rates used for the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, and Guam are those specified for the contiguous States.

    School Programs—Meal, Snack and Milk Payments to States and School Food Authorities [Expressed in dollars or fractions thereof, effective from: July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019] National school lunch program 1 Less than 60% Less than 60% +6 cents 2 60% or more 60% or more +6 cents 2 Maximum rate Maximum rate +6 cents 2 CONTIGUOUS STATES: PAID 0.31 0.37 0.33 0.39 0.30 0.45 REDUCED PRICE 2.91 2.97 2.93 2.99 3.08 3.14 FREE 3.31 3.37 3.33 3.39 3.48 3.54 ALASKA: PAID 0.51 0.57 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.67 REDUCED PRICE 4.98 5.04 5.00 5.06 5.22 5.28 FREE 5.38 5.44 5.40 5.46 5.62 5.68 HAWAII and PUERTO RICO: PAID 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.51 REDUCED PRICE 3.48 3.54 3.50 3.56 3.66 3.73 FREE 3.88 3.94 3.90 3.96 4.06 4.12 School breakfast program Non-severe need Severe need CONTIGUOUS STATES: PAID 0.31 0.31 REDUCED PRICE 1.49 1.84 FREE 1.79 2.14 ALASKA: PAID 0.46 0.46 REDUCED PRICE 2.57 3.13 School breakfast program Non-severe need Severe need FREE 2.87 3.43 HAWAII and PUERTO RICO: PAID 0.35 0.35 REDUCED PRICE 1.79 2.20 FREE 2.09 2.50 Special milk program All milk Paid milk Free milk SPECIAL PROGRAMS WITHOUT FREE OPTION 0.2050 N/A N/A. PRICING PROGRAMS WITH FREE OPTION N/A 0.2050 Average Cost Per 1/2 Pint of Milk. NONPRICING PROGRAMS 0.2050 N/A N/A. After school snacks served in after school care programs CONTIGUOUS STATES: PAID 0.08 REDUCED PRICE 0.45 FREE 0.91 ALASKA: PAID 0.13 REDUCED PRICE 0.74 FREE 1.48 HAWAII and PUERTO RICO: PAID 0.09 REDUCED PRICE 0.53 FREE 1.06 1 Payment listed for Free and Reduced Price Lunches include both section 4 and section 11 funds. 2 Performance-based cash reimbursement (adjusted annually for inflation).

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

    This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Special Milk Programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555, No. 10.553, and No. 10.556, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

    Authority:

    Sections 4, 8, 11, and 17A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1757, 1759a, 1766a) and sections 3 and 4(b) of the Child Nutrition Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1772 and 42 U.S.C. 1773(b)).

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15465 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Child and Adult Care Food Program: National Average Payment Rates, Day Care Home Food Service Payment Rates, and Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes for the Period July 1, 2018 Through June 30, 2019 AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the annual adjustments to the national average payment rates for meals and snacks served in child care centers, outside-school-hours care centers, at-risk afterschool care centers, and adult day care centers; the food service payment rates for meals and snacks served in day care homes; and the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Further adjustments are made to these rates to reflect the higher costs of providing meals in Alaska and Hawaii. The adjustments contained in this notice are made on an annual basis each July, as required by the laws and regulations governing the Child and Adult Care Food Program.

    DATES:

    These rates are effective from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Saracino, Branch Chief, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Pursuant to sections 4, 11, and 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759a and 1766), section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) and 7 CFR 226.4, 226.12 and 226.13 of the Program regulations, notice is hereby given of the new payment rates for institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). As provided for under the law, all rates in the CACFP must be revised annually, on July 1, to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, for the most recent 12-month period. These rates are in effect during the period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

    Adjusted Payments

    The following national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks are in effect from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. All amounts are expressed in dollars or fractions thereof. Due to a higher cost of living, the reimbursements for Alaska and Hawaii are higher than those for all other States. The District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam use the figures specified for the contiguous States. These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each lunch or supper served to participants under the Program. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register.

    Adjustments to the national average payment rates for all meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program are rounded down to the nearest whole cent.

    National Average Payment Rates for Centers

    The changes in the national average payment rates for centers reflect a 2.68 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2017 to May 2018 (from 268.128 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 275.307 in May 2018) in the food away from home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    Payments for breakfasts served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—31 cents (1 cent increase from 2017-2018 annual level), reduced price rate—1 dollar and 49 cents (4 cents increase), free rate—1 dollar and 79 cents (4 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—46 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—2 dollars and 57 cents (8 cents increase), free rate—2 dollars and 87 cents (8 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate -35 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate -1 dollar and 79 cents (6 cents increase), free rate—2 dollars and 09 cents (6 cents increase).

    Payments for lunch or supper served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—31 cents (no change from 2017-2018 annual level), reduced price rate—2 dollars and 91 cents (8 cents increase), free rate—3 dollars and 31 cents (8 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—51 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—4 dollars and 98 cents (14 cents increase), free rate—5 dollars and 38 cents (14 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate—37 cents (1 cent increase), reduced price rate—3 dollars and 48 cents (10 cents increase), free rate—3 dollars and 88 cents (10 cents increase).

    Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States—paid rate—8 cents (no change from 2017-2018 annual level), reduced price rate—45 cents (1 cent increase), free rate—91 cents (3 cents increase); Alaska—paid rate—13 cents (no change), reduced price rate—74 cents (2 cents increase), free rate—148 cents (4 cents increase); Hawaii—paid rate—9 cents (no change), reduced price rate—53 cents (1 cent increase), free rate—1 dollar and 6 cents (2 cents increase).

    Food Service Payment Rates for Day Care Homes

    The changes in the food service payment rates for day care homes reflect a 0.14 percent increase during the 12-month period from May 2017 to May 2018 (from 238.964 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 239.287 in May 2018) in the food at home series of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    Payments for breakfast served are: Contiguous States—tier I—1 dollar and 31 cents (no change from 2017-2018 annual level) and tier II—48 cents (no change); Alaska—tier I—2 dollars and 9 cents (no change) and tier II—74 cents (no change); Hawaii—tier I—1 dollar and 53 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—55 cents (no change).

    Payments for lunch and supper served are: Contiguous States—tier I—2 dollars and 46 cents (no change from 2017-2018 annual level) and tier II—1 dollar and 48 cents (no change); Alaska—tier I—3 dollars and 99 cents (no change) and tier II—2 dollars and 41 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—tier I—2 dollars and 88 cents (no change) and tier II—1 dollar and 74 cents (no change).

    Payments for snack served are: Contiguous States—tier I—73 cents (no change from 2017-2018 annual level) and tier II—20 cents (no change); Alaska—tier I—1 dollar and 19 cents (no change) and tier II—33 cents (1 cent increase); Hawaii—tier I—86 cents (1 cent increase) and tier II—23 cents (no change).

    Administrative Reimbursement Rates for Sponsoring Organizations of Day Care Homes

    The changes in the administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring organizations of day care homes reflect a 2.80 percent increase during the 12-month period, May 2017 to May 2018 (from 244.733 in May 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 251.588 in May 2018) in the series for all items of the CPI for All Urban Consumers.

    Monthly administrative payments to sponsors for each sponsored day care home are: Contiguous States—initial 50 homes—118 dollars (4 dollar increase from 2017-2018 annual level), next 150 homes—90 dollars (3 dollar increase), next 800 homes—70 dollars (2 dollar increase), each additional home—62 dollars (2 dollar increase); Alaska—initial 50 homes—191 dollars (6 dollar increase), next 150 homes—145 dollars (4 dollar increase), next 800 homes—113 dollars (3 dollar increase), each additional home—100 dollars (3 dollar increase); Hawaii—initial 50 homes—138 dollars (4 dollar increase), next 150 homes—105 dollars (3 dollar increase), next 800 homes—82 dollars (2 dollar increase), each additional home—72 dollars (2 dollar increase).

    Payment Chart

    The following chart illustrates the national average payment factors and food service payment rates for meals and snacks in effect from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019.

    Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) [Per meal rates in whole or fractions of U.S. dollars, effective from July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019] Centers Breakfast Lunch and supper 1 Supplement CONTIGUOUS STATES: PAID 0.31 0.31 0.08 REDUCED PRICE 1.49 2.91 0.45 FREE 1.79 3.31 0.91 ALASKA: PAID 0.46 0.51 0.13 REDUCED PRICE 2.57 4.98 0.74 FREE 2.87 5.38 1.48 HAWAII: PAID 0.35 0.37 0.09 REDUCED PRICE 1.79 3.48 0.53 FREE 2.09 3.88 1.06 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)—Continued [Per meal rates in whole or fractions of U.S. dollars, effective from July 1, 2018-June 30, 2019] Day care homes Breakfast Tier I Tier II Lunch and supper Tier I Tier II Supplement Tier I Tier II CONTIGUOUS STATES 1.31 0.48 2.46 1.48 0.73 0.20 ALASKA 2.09 0.74 3.99 2.41 1.19 0.33 HAWAII 1.53 0.55 2.88 1.74 0.86 0.23 Administrative reimbursement rates for sponsoring
  • organizations of day care homes
  • (per home/per month rates in U.S. dollars)
  • Initial 50 Next 150 Next 800 Each
  • additional
  • CONTIGUOUS STATES 118 90 70 62 ALASKA 191 145 113 100 HAWAII 138 195 82 72 1 These rates do not include the value of USDA Foods or cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods which institutions receive as additional assistance for each CACFP lunch or supper served to participants. A notice announcing the value of USDA Foods and cash-in-lieu of USDA Foods is published separately in the Federal Register.

    This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice has been determined to be exempt under Executive Order 12866.

    CACFP is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.558 and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 415.3-415.6).

    This notice has been determined to be not significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conformance with Executive Order 12866.

    This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to OMB review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3518).

    Authority:

    Sections 4(b)(2), 11a, 17(c) and 17(f)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(2), 1759a, 1766(f)(3)(B)) and section 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)(1)(B)).

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15464 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Thursday, July 26, 2018, the purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to continue planning for August 9, 2018 briefing on policing practices in Nevada.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 26, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. PT.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 877-260-1479.

    Conference ID: 1176006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-260-1479, conference ID number: 1176006. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=261. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Approval Minutes From June 21, 2108 Meeting III. Update on Speakers IV. Vote on Flyer V. Publicity VI. Discuss Logistics VII. Public Comment VIII. Adjournment Dated: July 15, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15406 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 180608532-8537-01] Soliciting Feedback From Users on 2020 Census Data Products AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Since 1790, a census of the U.S. population has been conducted every 10 years, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Following the completion of the 2020 Census, the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) will disseminate several data products, such as including summary and detailed data tables, national and state demographic profiles, and topical briefs. The Census Bureau anticipates publishing the plans for 2020 Census data products in a future notice and seeks information on how products for prior decennial censuses were used to help determine which products to disseminate for the 2020 Census. An upcoming live question-and-answer webinar will provide an opportunity to ask any procedural questions about how to respond to this Notice.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please address all written comments to Karen Battle, Chief, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6H174, Washington, DC 20233, or by email at [email protected]

    You may also submit comments, identified by the following Census Bureau Docket Identification Number USBC-2018-0009, to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments received are part of the public record. No comments will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. Comments will generally be posted without change. All Personally Identifiable Information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Battle, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 6H174, Washington, DC 20233 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Census Bureau is conducting a comprehensive review of the decennial census data products in preparation for the 2020 Census. It seeks feedback via this Federal Register notice to understand how the public uses decennial census data products. Given the need for improved confidentiality protection, we may reduce the amount of detailed data that we release to the public. Public feedback is essential for a complete review of the decennial census data products will assist the Census Bureau in prioritizing products for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau is not seeking feedback on apportionment counts and redistricting data products, which are constitutionally mandated.

    The Census Bureau invites the public to participate in a live question-and-answer webinar on July 31, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, to learn more about the feedback process. The webinar will be recorded and made available later at https://www.census.gov/. Please note that the webinar is intended only to answer questions about the feedback process. All comments must be submitted though either electronic mail, postal mail, or the Federal e-Rulemaking portal as outlined above.

    The Census Bureau released a suite of data products following the 2010 Census, including summary and detailed data tables, national and state demographic profiles, and topical briefs. See https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/glance/ for a complete listing of 2020 Census data products and table shells, all of which also are available on the American FactFinder (AFF) website, http://factfinder.census.gov. In addition to general comments, the Census Bureau seeks feedback on the following data products:

    Summary File 1 includes detailed tables on age, sex, households, families, relationship to householder, housing units, detailed race and Hispanic or Latino origin groups, and group quarters. Some tables are repeated for nine race and Hispanic or Latino origin groups.

    Summary File 2 includes detailed tables on age, sex, households, families, relationship to householder, housing units, and group quarters. Most tables are shown down to the census tract level. Tables are repeated by 75 major race groups, 114 American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) groups, 47 Asian groups, 43 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups, and 51 Hispanic or Latino origin groups.

    The American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File is a national-level file showing the same content as Summary File 2. Tables are repeated for the total population, the total AIAN population, and for numerous AIAN tribes. Data are shown down to the tract level.

    The Demographic Profile shows data for age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, household type, group quarters population, housing occupancy, and housing tenure. The Demographic Profile was released as individual profiles for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico down to the place/functioning minor civil divisions, as well as for the U.S., regions, divisions, and other areas that cross state boundaries.

    The Summary Population and Housing Characteristics Report Series contains tables on age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, households, families, housing tenure and occupancy, population density, and area measurements. The lowest level of geography is the place level. There is a report produced for each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and a U.S. summary.

    The Population and Housing Unit Counts Report Series provides tables containing population and housing counts from the 2010 Census and selected historical censuses. Some tables also include area measurements and density. The lowest level of geography is the place level. There is a report produced for each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and a U.S. summary. Maps are included at the end of each report, and the User Notes section in each state report documents geographic changes over the past decade.

    The Census Population and Housing Tables cover a wide variety of topics, such as race, Hispanic or Latino origin, group quarters, and other data topics obtained from the 2010 Census.

    Census Briefs cover a variety of topics, such as race, Hispanic or Latino origin, and age and include analysis of topics using graphs and tables.

    The Census Bureau is especially interested in receiving responses to the following questions:

    1. How are the data from each individual table and data product used? Include any specific legal, statutory, or programmatic uses. Please cite any supporting federal laws or regulations.

    2. Why are decennial census statistics used for this purpose? Please provide a clear justification.

    3. Without decennial census data, how would this activity be accomplished (e.g., other data sources)?

    4. Who are the users of the specific table or data product?

    5. Who is affected by the use of the data in this specific table or data product?

    6. How much funding is distributed based on these data?

    7. What is the lowest level of geography (e.g., county, census block, etc.) at which data need to be published for each specific table? Please explain why data are needed at this level of geography. The Standard Hierarchy of Census Geographic Entities can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/geodiagram.pdf. The Hierarchy of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Hawaiian Areas can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/aianhh_diag.pdf.

    8. In what additional levels of geography (e.g., county subdivision, school district, etc.) or geographic components (e.g., urban, rural, etc.) do data need to be published for each specific table? If the level of geography specified in the response to item seven relates to the use planned for the levels of geography requested in this response, please explain how they are related. A listing of the available geographic components can be found in the 2010 Census Summary File 1 technical documentation, Chapter 6, pages 177-180: https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/doc/sf1.pdf.

    9. What programmatic, statutory, or legal uses are there for decennial census data that are not being met by the current suite of decennial census products? The Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-questions-2020-acs.pdf.

    A downloadable spreadsheet contains a listing of the data products and specific tables as well as space for feedback: https://www2.census.gov/about/policies/2020-Census-Data-Products-Feedback-Spreadsheet.xlsx. This spreadsheet may be a helpful tool for respondents to provide the requested information, but its use is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a current, valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. In accordance with the PRA, 44 United States Code, Chapter 35, the OMB Control Number for this collection is 0690-0030.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15458 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Corporation for Travel Promotion Board of Directors AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an opportunity for travel and tourism industry leaders to apply for membership on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Travel Promotion.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is currently seeking applications from travel and tourism leaders from specific industries for membership on the Board of Directors (Board) of the Corporation for Travel Promotion (doing business as Brand USA). The purpose of the Board is to guide the Corporation for Travel Promotion on matters relating to the promotion of the United States as a travel destination and communication of travel facilitation issues, among other tasks.

    DATES:

    All applications must be received by the National Travel and Tourism Office by close of business on Friday, August 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit application information by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Heizer, National Travel and Tourism Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, MS10003, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0140; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Travel Promotion Act of 2009 (TPA) was signed into law on March 4, 2010, and was amended in July 2010 and December 2014. The TPA established the Corporation for Travel Promotion (the Corporation), as a non-profit corporation charged with the development and execution of a plan to (A) provide useful information to those interested in traveling to the United States; (B) identify and address perceptions regarding U.S. entry policies; (C) maximize economic and diplomatic benefits of travel to the United States through the use of various promotional tools; (D) ensure that international travel benefits all States and the District of Columbia, and (E) identify opportunities to promote tourism to rural and urban areas equally, including areas not traditionally visited by international travelers.

    The Corporation is governed by a Board of Directors, consisting of 11 members with knowledge of international travel promotion or marketing, broadly representing various regions of the United States. The TPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State) to appoint the Board of Directors for the Corporation.

    At this time, the Department will be selecting four individuals with the appropriate expertise and experience from specific sectors of the travel and tourism industry to serve on the Board as follows:

    (A) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the hotel accommodations sector;

    (B) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience as officials of a city convention and visitors' bureau;

    (C) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience in the restaurant sector; and

    (D) 1 shall have appropriate expertise and experience as officials of a state tourism office.

    To be eligible for Board membership, individuals must have international travel and tourism marketing experience, be a current or former chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or chief marketing officer or have held an equivalent management position. Additional consideration will be given to individuals who have experience working in U.S. multinational entities with marketing budgets, and/or who are audit committee financial experts as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 7265). Individuals must be U.S. citizens, and in addition, cannot be federally registered lobbyists or registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    Those selected for the Board must be able to meet the time and effort commitments of the Board.

    Board members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce (who may remove any member of the Board for good cause). The terms of office of each member of the Board appointed by the Secretary shall be three (3) years. Board members can serve a maximum of two consecutive full three-year terms. Board members are not considered Federal government employees by virtue of their service as a member of the Board and will receive no compensation from the Federal government for their participation in Board activities. Members participating in Board meetings and events may be paid actual travel expenses and per diem by the Corporation when away from their usual places of residence.

    Individuals who want to be considered for appointment to the Board should submit the following information by the Friday, August 17, 2018 deadline to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section above:

    1. Name, title, and personal resume of the individual requesting consideration, including address, email address and phone number.

    2. A brief statement of why the person should be considered for appointment to the Board. This statement should also address the individual's relevant international travel and tourism marketing experience and audit committee financial expertise, if any, and indicate clearly the sector or sectors enumerated above in which the individual has the requisite expertise and experience. Individuals who have the requisite expertise and experience in more than one sector can be appointed for only one of those sectors. Appointments of members to the Board will be made by the Secretary of Commerce.

    3. An affirmative statement that the applicant is a U.S. citizen and further, is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Brian Beall, Deputy Director, National Travel and Tourism Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15408 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-823] Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Borusan Istikbal Ticaret and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively, Borusan), an exporter/producer of welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey), received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) March 20, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Whitley Herndon and Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-6274 and 202-482-4987, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review in the Federal Register on January 10, 2018.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On January 23, 2018, Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.2 On February 12, 2018, we received timely case briefs from the Government of Turkey and from Borusan. On May 2, 2018, Commerce postponed the final results of review until July 12, 2018.3

    1See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 83 FR 1237 (January 10, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    3See Memorandum, “Welded Line Pipe from Turkey: Extension of Deadline for the Final Results of 2015 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,” dated May 2, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is welded line pipe, which is carbon and alloy steel pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines, not more than 24 inches in nominal outside diameter. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.4

    4See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of 2015 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Welded Line Pipe from Turkey,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. A list of the issues raised by interested parties and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and 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 and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    We made no changes to our subsidy rate calculation.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution from a government or public entity that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.5 For a full description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with section 777A(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the total net countervailable subsidy rate for the period January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, to be:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Borusan Istikbal Ticaret and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.6 0.78 ad valorem.
    Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce intends to issue appropriate instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the company listed above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, from March 20, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at the ad valorem rate listed above.

    6 For the Borusan Companies, we initiated on the following: Borusan Istikbal Ticaret (Istikbal) and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (BMB). As explained in the PDM, we found Istikbal and BMB to be cross-owned under Borusan Holding, A.S. No party has provided argument to the contrary; thus, for these final results, we continue to find all three companies to be cross-owned, though only BMB received countervailable subsidies in this review period.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for Borusan, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. Accordingly, the cash deposit requirements that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this administrative review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (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 or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsides C. Benchmark Interest Rates V. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable VI. Programs Determined Not To Be Used During the POR VII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Treatment of the Investment Encouragement Program (IEP): Customs and Value Added Tax (VAT) Exemption Program Comment 2: Whether To Include Borusan's Exchange Variation Income in the Total Value of Sales and Total Value of Export Sales VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-15435 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-807] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 9, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (the Court) entered final judgment sustaining the final results of the remand redetermination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) pertaining to the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with Commerce's final determination in the AD investigation of CWP from the UAE.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse and Whitley Herndon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 and (202) 482-6274, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Subsequent to the October 28, 2016, publication of the Final Determination, 1 and the December 16, 2016, publication of the Order, 2 Wheatland Tube Company (i.e., the petitioner), filed a complaint with the Court challenging Commerce's treatment of the cost of “caps” used by Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, LLC—Jebel Ali Branch (UTP-JA), a producer/exporter of the mandatory respondent, Universal.3 On April 24, 2018, the Court remanded Commerce's final determination with the instruction that Commerce reexamine whether UTP-JA's cost of caps should be treated as packing expenses in light of its prior treatment of this material.4

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 75030 (October 28, 2016) (Final Determination).

    2See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 91906 (December 19, 2016) (Order).

    3 Universal is the name collectively used for the following group of affiliated producers/exporters of CWP: KHK Scaffolding and Framework LLC; Universal Tube and Pipe Industries, Ltd; and UTP-JA.

    4See Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, Court No. 17-00021, Slip Op. 18-49 (CIT April 24, 2018).

    On June 22, 2018, Commerce issued its final results of redetermination, in which we reclassified UTP-JA's cost of caps as packing expenses; this revision did not change the final dumping margin for Universal.5 On July 9, 2018, the Court sustained the Remand Redetermination.

    5See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Wheatland Tube Company v. United States, Court No. 17-00021, Slip Op. 18-49 (CIT April 24, 2018), dated June 21, 2018, available at: https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/index.html (Remand Redetermination).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 6 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 7 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Commerce determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's July 9, 2018, final judgment sustaining Commerce's Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with Commerce's Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    6See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    7See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    We have not amended the Final Determination because reclassifying UTP-JA's cost of caps as packing expenses did not result in a change to the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Universal in the Final Determination, which remains 5.58 percent.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c)(1) and (e), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15566 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-048] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has completed its expedited review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from the People's Republic of China (China) and finds that Jiangsu Tiangong Tools Company Limited (TG Tools) received countervailable subsidies during period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Mullen, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this expedited review on March 21, 2018.1 A summary of the events that occurred since we published the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for the final results, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 2 issued concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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.

    1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Expedited Review, 83 FR 12337 (March 21, 2018) (Preliminary Results).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is CTL plate. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    3Id.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this CVD expedited review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The subsidy programs under review, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties, are discussed 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 as an Appendix to this notice.

    Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from parties, we made certain changes to TG Tools' subsidy rate calculations since the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Calculation Memorandum.4

    4Id; see also Memorandum, “Final Results Calculations for TG Tools” (June 13, 2018).

    Final Results of the Expedited Review

    As a result of this expedited review, we determine the countervailable subsidy rate to be:

    Company Subsidy rate Jiangsu Tiangong Tools Company Limited, Tiangong Aihe Company Limited, Jiangsu Tiangong Group Company Limited, Jiangsu Tiangong Mould Steel R&D Center Company Limited 26.90 percent Cash Deposit Instructions

    Pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.214(k)(3)(iii), the final results of this expedited review will not be the basis for the assessment of countervailing duties. Upon the issuance of these final results, Commerce will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties for the companies subject to this expedited review, at the rates shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this expedited review. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (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 or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(k).

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VI. Analysis of Programs VII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: TG Tools' Ministerial Error Allegation Comment 2: AFA for Land Use for LTAR Comment 3: Cross-Ownership Standard for TG Tools Comment 4: Electricity for LTAR Calculation Comment 5: Ocean Freight Benchmark Comment 6: VAT in Benchmarks Comment 7: Policy Loan Calculations Comment 8: Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions Calculation VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-15436 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Mammals and Endangered Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permits and permit amendments/modifications.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permits and related documents are available for review 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shasta McClenahan (Permit Nos. 17845-03, 21238, 21348, and 21371), Carrie Hubard (Permit No. 22049), and Erin Markin (Permit No. 19496-01); at (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the research, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in the table below.

    Permit No. RIN Applicant Previous Federal Register Notice Permit or amendment issuance date 17845-03 0648-XC599 Rachel Cartwright, Ph.D., Keiki Kohola Project, 4945 Coral Way, Oxnard, CA 93035 82 FR 11180; February 21, 2017 June 14, 2018. 19496-01 0648-XG038 Mariana Fuentes, Ph.D., Florida State University, 3263 Foley Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32309 83 FR 10686; March 12, 2018 June 5, 2018. 21238 0648-XG028 Center for Whale Research (Responsible Party: Kenneth Balcomb III), 355 Smuggler's Cove Road, Friday Harbor, WA 98250 83 FR 8435; February 27, 2018 June 4, 2018. 21348 0648-XG027 NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112 83 FR 11733; March 16, 2018 June 5, 2018. 21371 0648-XF968 NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 83 FR 5614; February 8, 2018 June 4, 2018. 22049 0648-XG206 Living Planet Productions/Silverback Films (Responsible Party: Sarah Wade), 1 St. Augustine Yard, Gaunts Lane, Bristol, BS1 5DE, UK 83 FR 19710; May 4, 2018 June 7, 2018.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

    Authority: The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), 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), as applicable.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15460 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG342 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Research Steering Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 100 High Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801; telephone: (603) 431-1499.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Research Steering Committee will develop Council recommendations regarding the Research Review Policy and the purpose and functions of the RSC. They will also receive updates on improving the functionality of how research priorities are listed, Council Coordination Committee discussion, and other developments; develop any additional Council recommendations. The Committee will meet the NEFSC new Fishery Monitoring & Research Division Chief and receive updates on cooperative research activities; develop Council recommendations as well as receive an overview of the NEFMC's ongoing review of the Research-Set-Aside programs; develop Council recommendations. The Research Steering Committee will review completed research project on: An experimental fishery for silver hake/whiting in Small Mesh Area I and the Western Raised Footrope Exemption Area; develop Council recommendations. Address other business as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained on this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after the publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15454 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG347 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a one day meeting of its Standing, Reef Fish, Mackerel and Shrimp Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Thursday, August 2, 2017, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Tampa Airport Westshore Hotel, located at 2225 N Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 877-6688.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 4701 W Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Froeschke, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thursday, August 2, 2018: 8 a.m.-5:30 p.m. I. Introductions and Adoption of Agenda II. Approval of May 31-June 1, 2018 SSC Minutes III. Selection of SSC representative at August 20-23, 2018 Council meeting in Corpus Christi, TX Standing and Mackerel SSC Session IV. Options Paper—Modifications to Gulf of Mexico Migratory Group Cobia Size and Possession Limits a. Updated catch-per-unit effort indices for Gulf cobia b. Review of draft options paper Standing, Reef Fish and Shrimp SSC Session V. Update on Council Request regarding shrimp effort threshold reduction in the area monitored for juvenile red snapper bycatch Standing and Reef Fish SSC Session VI. Review of Procedure for Red Grouper Interim Analysis VII. Overview of revised SEDAR process: Research, operational, and interim tacks VIII. Council staff proposed modifications to the SEDAR process IX. Determine need for a red snapper research track assessment in 2020, followed by an operational assessment in 2021 X. Selection of Workgroup Appointees for SEDAR 64—Yellowtail Snapper Benchmark Assessment XI. Specify the TORs for the 2020 operational assessments for gag and greater amberjack XII. Review of Gray Snapper Global SPR Analysis XIII. Draft Reef Fish Amendment 48/Red Drum Amendment 5 a. Review of revised reference sheet b. Action 1-MSY proxies issues and alternatives i. Summary of MSY Proxies Working Group meeting ii. Revised MSY proxies alternatives c. Action 4-OY alternatives i. Draft OY buffer spreadsheet d. Actions 2 and 3 (MSST and MFMT) VI. Tentative 2018/19 SSC Meeting Dates VII. Other Business —Meeting Adjourns

    The meeting will be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the SSC meeting on the calendar. https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3383291116212545537-. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on www.gulfcouncil.org as they become available.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15469 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG345 Marine Mammals; File No. 21329 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that John P. Wise, Sr., Ph.D., University of Louisville, Department of Pharmacology, 500 S Preston St., Suite 1319, Louisville, KY 40202 has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and export biological samples from marine mammals, sea turtles, and protected sharks for scientific research purposes.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 20, 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 File No. 21329 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 this application 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. 21329 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 this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

    The applicant proposes to receive, import, and export specimens from marine mammals, sea turtles, and protected sharks under NMFS' jurisdiction to: (1) Determine concentrations of metals and other environmental contaminants in these species; and (2) establish a resource of marine mammal, sea turtle, and protected shark cell lines for use as model systems in the investigation of various factors related to the health of these protected species and as comparative tools to human studies (toxicity of metals, virology, etc.). Import and export authority is requested worldwide and the number of animals requested per species is outlined in the take tables in the application.

    No take of live wild animals would be involved; tissues would be received from the following sources: Marine mammals or sharks stranded dead or that died during rehabilitation; captive marine mammals or sharks held for public display or research; marine mammals and sharks taken in a legal fishery; marine mammals, sea turtles, or sharks sampled by other permitted researchers; and marine mammals or sharks killed during legal subsistence hunts. Once the cell lines are established, they may be transferred to other researchers for scientific research, including export to world-wide locations. The cell lines would not be sold for profit or used for commercial purposes. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15459 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG326 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting (webinar).

    SUMMARY:

    The Groundfish Subcommittee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council's) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting via webinar to review a draft terms of reference for the groundfish and coastal pelagic species stock assessment review process for 2019 and 2020 and any other matters the SSC may be discussing at their upcoming September meeting in Seattle, WA. The webinar meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee webinar will be held Thursday, August 2, 2018, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time or until business for the day has been completed.

    ADDRESSES:

    The SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee meeting will be held by webinar. To attend the webinar, (1) join the meeting by visiting this link https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar, (2) enter the webinar ID: 722-907-851, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging into the webinar, please (1) dial this TOLL number: 1-415-655-0052 (not a toll-free number); (2) enter the attendee phone audio access code: 667-817-359; and (3) then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled mic/speakers as an option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see the https://www.gotomeeting.com/webinar/ipad-iphone-android-webinar-apps). You may send an email to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 411 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John DeVore, Staff Officer, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee meeting is to review a draft terms of reference for the groundfish and coastal pelagic species stock assessment review process for 2019 and 2020. The review will focus on proposed changes from the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee may also address any other matters the SSC may be discussing at their September meeting in Seattle, WA.

    No management actions will be decided by the SSC's Groundfish Subcommittee. The SSC Groundfish Subcommittee members' role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the SSC and Pacific Council at the September meeting in Seattle, WA.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agendas may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent of the SSC Groundfish Subcommittee to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (503) 820-2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15455 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG279 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Cost Recovery Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notification of fee percentage.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS publishes notification of a 1.85 percent fee for cost recovery under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program. This action is intended to provide holders of crab allocations with the fee percentage for the 2018/2019 crab fishing year so they can calculate the required payment for cost recovery fees that must be submitted by July 31, 2019.

    DATES:

    The Crab Rationalization Program Registered Crab Receiver permit holder is responsible for submitting the fee liability payment to NMFS on or before July 31, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kurt Iverson, (907) 586-7210.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    NMFS Alaska Region administers the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (Program) in the North Pacific. Fishing under the Program began on August 15, 2005. Regulations implementing the Program can be found at 50 CFR part 680.

    The Program is a limited access system authorized by section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Program includes a cost recovery provision to collect fees to recover the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The Program implemented under the authority of section 313(j) is consistent with the cost recovery provisions included under section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS developed the cost recovery provision to conform to statutory requirements and to reimburse the agency for the actual costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the Program. The cost recovery provision allows collection of 133 percent of the actual management, data collection, and enforcement costs up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of crab harvested under the Program. The Program provides that a proportional share of fees charged for management and enforcement be forwarded to the State of Alaska for its share of management and data collection costs for the Program. The cost recovery provision also requires the harvesting and processing sectors to each pay half the cost recovery fees. Catcher/processor quota shareholders are required to pay the full fee percentage for crab processed at sea.

    A crab allocation holder generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab landed. The crab allocations include Individual Fishing Quota, Crew Individual Fishing Quota, Individual Processing Quota, Community Development Quota, and the Adak community allocation. The Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit holder must collect the fee liability from the crab allocation holder who is landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit holder must collect his or her own fee liability for all crab delivered to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS on or before July 31, in the year following the crab fishing year in which landings of crab were made.

    The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage (not to exceed 3 percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from the allocation. Specific details on the Program's cost recovery provision may be found in the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 680.44.

    Fee Percentage

    Each year, NMFS calculates and publishes in the Federal Register the fee percentage according to the factors and methodology described at § 680.44(c)(2). The formula for determining the fee percentage is the “direct program costs” divided by “value of the fishery,” where “direct program costs” are the direct program costs for the Program for the previous fiscal year, and “value of the fishery” is the ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the crab cost recovery fee liability for the current year. Fee collections for any given year may be less than, or greater than, the actual costs and fishery value for that year, because, by regulation, the fee percentage is established in the first quarter of a crab fishery year based on the fishery value and the costs of the prior year.

    Based upon the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of costs to value for the 2017/2018 fishery was 1.85 percent. Therefore, the fee percentage will be 1.85 percent for the 2018/2019 crab fishing year. This is an increase of 0.28 percent from the 2017/2018 fee percentage of 1.57 percent (81 FR 32329, July 13, 2017). Although direct program costs for managing the fishery increased by 2.9 percent from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018, the increase in the fee percentage was more affected by a $24.0 million decrease in the value of the crab harvested under the Program. Similar to previous years, the largest direct program costs are incurred by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15468 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council). The meeting is open to the public, and participants may provide comments at the appropriate time during the meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 22, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, and an opportunity for public comment will be provided around 4:00 p.m. ET. Both these times and agenda topics are subject to change.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at JetBlue Airways Corporation, 27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY 11101. The meeting agenda, including times and topics, can be found here: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/bac/meetings.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LeAnn Hogan, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 240-533-0679; Fax: 301-713-0404; Email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. The Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council) has been formed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director regarding the relationship of ONMS with the business community. Additional information on the council can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/welcome.html.

    Matters to be Considered: The meeting will provide an opportunity for council members to hear news from across the National Marine Sanctuary System and review and comment on program initiatives. For a complete agenda, including times and topics, please visit http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/bac/meetings.html. This meeting notice is being issued under Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1445A.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, et seq.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: June 27, 2018. John Armor, Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15452 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG361 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a public hearing via webinar to solicit public comments on Amendment 13—Spiny Lobster for Management in the Gulf of Mexico.

    DATES:

    The webinar will convene on Thursday, August 2, 2018, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., EDT. The webinar will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing will be held via webinar. Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 4701 W Spruce Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Morgan Kilgour, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda for the following webinar is as follows: Council staff will brief the public on the purpose and need of the amendment. The Council is currently considering aligning federal regulations in the EEZ off Florida with those of the state of Florida and creating an enhanced cooperative management procedure with Florida for federal waters off Florida. Council staff will also provide an overview of the actions and alternatives considered in the amendment including the Council preferred alternatives. Staff and a Council member will be available to answer any questions and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony. The schedule is as follows:

    Tuesday, August 2, 2018; Webinar 6 p.m.—9 p.m. EST at: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/552356550647070721.

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    —Meeting Adjourns

    The public hearing will be broadcast via webinar. You may also register for the webinar by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the Public Hearing meeting on the calendar.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15467 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program AGENCY:

    Coral Reef Conservation Program, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Meeting, Notice of Public Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a public meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2018. For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Thursday, August 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force by any of the following methods:

    Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in Pago Pago, American Samoa at the Rex H. Lee Auditorium, Highway 1, Utulei.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Jennifer Koss, NOAA USCRTF Steering Committee Point of Contact, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 East-West Highway, N/OCRM, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Koss, NOAA USCRTF Steering Committee Point of Contact, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, 1305 East-West Highway, N/OCRM, Silver Spring, MD 20910 at 301-533-0777 or Liza Johnson, USCRTF Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior, MS-3530-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240 at (202) 208-5004 or visit the USCRTF website at http://www.coralreef.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting provides a forum for coordinated planning and action among federal agencies, state and territorial governments, and nongovernmental partners. Registration is requested for all events associated with the meeting. This meeting has time allotted for public comment. All public comments must be submitted in written format. A written summary of the meeting will be posted on the USCRTF website within two months of occurrence. For information about the meeting, registering and submitting public comments, go to http://www.coralreef.gov.

    Commenters may address the meeting, the role of the USCRTF, or general coral reef conservation issues. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment, including personal identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Established by Presidential Executive Order 13089 in 1998, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force mission is to lead, coordinate and strengthen U.S. government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. Co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and Interior, Task Force members include leaders of 12 federal agencies, seven U.S. states and territories and three freely associated states.

    The meeting will be held Thursday, August 16, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Pago Pago, American Samoa at the Rex H. Lee Auditorium, Highway 1, Utulei.

    Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15453 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG339 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public scoping meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public scoping meetings via webinar pertaining to three amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the South Atlantic Region. Amendment 47 considers modifications to the federally permitted South Atlantic snapper grouper for-hire fishery. Regulatory Amendment 29 considers options to implement best fishing practices and remove powerhead restrictions in the federal waters off the coast of South Carolina. Regulatory Amendment 32 addresses options for revisions to the in-season accountability measures for yellowtail snapper.

    DATES:

    The scoping meetings will be held via webinar on the following dates: Amendment 47—August 6, August 9, and August 14, 2018; Regulatory Amendment 29—August 7 and August 8, 2018 and; Regulatory Amendment 32—August 15 and August 16, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The scoping meetings will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's website at www.safmc.net. The scoping meetings will begin at 6 p.m. Registration for the webinars is required. Registration information will be posted on the Council's website at www.safmc.net as it becomes available.

    Public scoping is the beginning phase of amendment development. The Council will gather public input and ideas on how to solve a fishery problem or address a need. The public is encouraged to identify issues, potential impacts, and reasonable solutions for options being considered in each amendment.

    Amendment 47 to the Snapper Grouper FMP

    Amendment 47 considers options for limiting entry into the for-hire Snapper Grouper fishery, establishing a mechanism that would allow new entrants into the for-hire Snapper Grouper fishery under limited entry, and modifying regulations that prevent anglers onboard federally permitted for-hire Snapper Grouper vessels from possessing Snapper Grouper species in state waters when harvest of these species closes in federal waters.

    Regulatory Amendment 29 to the Snapper Grouper FMP

    Regulatory Amendment 29 addresses the use of best fishing practices to reduce discards and discard mortality for species in the snapper grouper management complex, including: The use of venting tools and descending devices to release fish experiencing barotrauma, modification to the non-stainless-steel circle hook requirement, and specification of allowable rigs. The draft amendment also includes options to modify current regulations for the use of powerhead gear.

    Regulatory Amendment 32 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan

    Regulatory Amendment 32 considers modifications to yellowtail snapper accountability measures (AM) to minimize the probability of in-season closures and consequent socio-economic impacts.

    During the scoping meetings, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council. Public scoping documents and presentations for each amendment will be posted to the Council's website at http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/public-hearings-scoping-meetings/ as they become available.

    Written comments may also be submitted and must be received by 5 p.m. on August 17, 2018. The Council requests that written comments be submitted using the online public comment forms that will be posted the Council's website at http://safmc.net/safmc-meetings/public-hearings-scoping-meetings/ as they become available. Written comments may also be submitted to: Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15456 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice Requesting Nominations for the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) AGENCY:

    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Request for membership nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is seeking highly qualified individuals who are knowledgeable about the commercial space-based remote sensing industry and uses of space-based remote sensing data to serve on the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES). The Committee is comprised of leaders in the commercial space-based remote sensing industry, space-based remote sensing data users, government, and academia. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice provides committee and membership criteria.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Samira Patel, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office, NOAA Satellite and Information Services, 1335 East-West Highway, Room 8247, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone (301) 713-7077, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary, through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and NOAA's activities to carry out responsibilities of the Department of Commerce as set forth in 51 U.S.C. 60101, et seq.

    Committee members serve in a representative capacity for a term of two years and may serve additional terms, if reappointed. No more than 20 individuals at a time may serve on the Committee. ACCRES will have a fairly balanced membership consisting of approximately 9 to 20 members. Nominations are encouraged from all interested U.S. persons and organizations representing interests affected by the regulation of remote sensing. Nominees must represent stakeholders in remote sensing, space commerce, space policy, or a related field and be able to attend committee meetings that are held usually two times per year. Membership is voluntary, and service is without pay. Each nomination that is submitted should include the proposed committee member's name and organizational affiliation, a brief description of the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee, a curriculum vitae or resume of the nominee, and no more than three supporting letters describing the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Committee. Self-nominations are acceptable. The following contact information should accompany each submission: The nominee's name, address, phone number, fax number, and email address.

    Nominations should be sent to Tahara Dawkins, Director, Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs Office, 1335 East-West Highway, G-101, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Nominations must be postmarked no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice. The full text of the Committee Charter and its current membership can be viewed at the Agency's web page at: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/CRSRA/accresHome.html.

    Stephen M. Volz, Assistant Administrator, for Satellite and Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-14970 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Two Modified Systems of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is republishing two existing System of Record Notices (SORNs): CFTC-39, Freedom of Information Act Requests and CFTC-40, Privacy Act Requests. The modification will add three routine uses, clarify existing routine uses, and bring the SORNs in compliance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-108 SORN template. Two of the new routine uses pertain to sharing information to mitigate a breach and are required by OMB Memorandum 17-12. The third new routine use is requested by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to allow disclosure of personally identifiable information to OGIS for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute resolution and compliance review purposes. Other updates include identifying the specific routine uses applicable to each of the systems of records rather than relying on CFTC's previously published blanket routine uses, and administrative updates to comply with the OMB Circular A-108 SORN template format.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018. This action takes effect without further notice on August 20, 2018, unless revised pursuant to comments received.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified as pertaining to “Freedom of Information Act Requests” or “Privacy Act Requests” by any of the following methods:

    Agency website, via its Comments Online process: https://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the website.

    Mail: Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations, 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or remove any or all of a submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the notice will be retained in the comment file and will be considered as required under all applicable laws, and may be accessible under the FOIA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief Privacy Officer, [email protected], Office of the Executive Director, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. The Privacy Act

    Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, a “system of records” is defined as any group of records under the control of a Federal government agency from which information about individuals is retrieved by name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act establishes the means by which government agencies must collect, maintain, and use information about an individual in a government system of records.

    Each government agency is required to publish a notice in the Federal Register in which the agency identifies and describes each system of records it maintains, the reasons why the agency uses the information therein, the routine uses for which the agency will disclose such information outside the agency, and how individuals may exercise their rights under the Privacy Act.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), CFTC has provided reports of these systems of records to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress.

    II. Background

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is republishing two existing SORNs: CFTC-39, Freedom of Information Act Requests and CFTC-40, Privacy Act Requests. The SORNs are being republished to add three routine uses, clarify existing routine uses, and bring the SORN in compliance with OMB Circular A-108 SORN template. The records covered under the Freedom of Information Act Requests SORN are collected and maintained to process requests made under the provisions of the FOIA, and to assist the CFTC in carrying out any other responsibilities relating to the FOIA. The records covered under the Privacy Act Requests SORN are collected and maintained to process requests made under the provisions of the Privacy Act, and to assist the CFTC in carrying out any other responsibilities relating to the Privacy Act. Two routine uses are being added to both SORNs to permit sharing with other Federal agencies or Federal entities as required by OMB Memorandum 17-12, “Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information.” These routine uses will assist the CFTC and/or other Federal agencies or entities in responding to a suspected or confirmed breach and/or prevent, minimize, or remedy the risk of harm to the requesters, the CFTC, the Federal government, or national security. A third routine use is being added to both SORNs to permit sharing with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) so OGIS can review administrative policies, procedures, and compliance, and to facilitate resolutions to disputes between persons making FOIA requests and the CFTC. Additional updates to both SORNs include clarifying the specific routine uses applicable to each system of records, and administrative updates including section name and organization updates to comply with the OMB Circular A-108 SORN template format.

    III. Notice: Freedom of Information Act Requests, CFTC-39. SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    Freedom of Information Act Requests, CFTC-39.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    This system is located at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. Other offices involved in the processing of requests may also maintain copies of the requests and any related internal administrative records.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The collection of this information is authorized under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, 5 U.S.C. 301.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    The information in this system is being collected to enable the CFTC to carry out its responsibilities under the FOIA. These responsibilities include enabling CFTC staff to receive, track, and respond to FOIA requests. This requires maintaining documentation gathered during the consideration and disposition process and administering annual reporting requirements.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals requesting information from the Commission pursuant to provisions of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, and individuals who are the subjects of FOIA requests.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The system of records includes information that may contain: requests, responsive documents, internal memoranda, electronic mail, response letters, appeals of denials, appeal determinations, electronic tracking data, fee schedules, cost calculations, and assessed cost for disclosed FOIA records.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Individuals requesting information from the Commission pursuant to the FOIA and CFTC staff processing the requests.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    These records and information in these records may be used:

    (a) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies;

    (b) To disclose in any administrative proceeding before the Commission, in any injunctive action authorized under the Commodity Exchange Act, or in any other action or proceeding in which the Commission or its staff participates as a party or the Commission participates as amicus curiae;

    (c) To disclose to Federal, State, local, territorial, Tribal, or foreign agencies for use in meeting their statutory or regulatory requirements;

    (d) To disclose to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function;

    (e) To disclose to Congress upon its request, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;

    (f) To disclose to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (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 Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or

    (g) To disclose to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission 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:

    The FOIA system of records stores records in this system electronically. The records are stored on the Commission's secure network and secure back-up media.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Information covered by this system of records notice may be retrieved by assigned control number, name of requester, or by subject of request.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records for this system will be maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. All approved schedules are available at http://www.cftc.gov.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures. Administrative safeguards include written guidelines on handling FOIA information including agency-wide procedures for safeguarding personally identifiable information. In addition, all CFTC staff are required to take annual privacy and security training. Technical security measures within CFTC include restrictions on computer access to authorized individuals who have a legitimate need to know the information; required use of strong passwords that are frequently changed; multi-factor authentication for remote access and access to many CFTC network components; use of encryption for certain data types and transfers; firewalls and intrusion detection applications; and regular review of security procedures and best practices to enhance security. Physical safeguards include restrictions on building access to authorized individuals, 24-hour security guard service, and maintenance of records in lockable offices and filing cabinets.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act access request.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.8 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act amendment request.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act notification request.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    A previous version of this SORN was published in the Federal Register on February 02, 2011 at 76 FR 5973.

    IV. Notice: Privacy Act Requests, CFTC-40.

    SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    Privacy Act Requests, CFTC-40.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    This system is located at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. Other offices involved in the processing of requests may also maintain copies of the requests and any related internal administrative records.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    The collection of this information is authorized under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 5 U.S.C. 301.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    The information in this system is being collected to enable the CFTC to carry out its responsibilities under the Privacy Act. These responsibilities include enabling CFTC staff to receive, track, and respond to Privacy Act requests.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals filing requests for access to, correction of, or an accounting of disclosures of personal information contained in systems of records maintained by the Commission, pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974. 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Requests, responsive documents, internal memoranda, response letters, appeals of denials, appeal determinations, and electronic tracking data.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Individuals requesting information from the Commission pursuant to the Privacy Act and CFTC staff processing the requests.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    These records and information in these records may be used:

    (a) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies;

    (b) To disclose in any administrative proceeding before the Commission, in any injunctive action authorized under the Commodity Exchange Act, or in any other action or proceeding in which the Commission or its staff participates as a party or the Commission participates as amicus curiae;

    (c) To disclose to Federal, State, local, territorial, Tribal, or foreign agencies for use in meeting their statutory or regulatory requirements;

    (d) To disclose to anyone during the course of a Commission investigation if Commission staff has reason to believe that the person to whom it is disclosed may have further information about matters relevant to the subject of the investigation;

    (e) To disclose to contractors, grantees, volunteers, experts, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or job for the Federal government when necessary to accomplish an agency function;

    (f) To disclose to Congress upon its request, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;

    (g) To disclose to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (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 Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; or

    (h) To disclose to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Commission 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:

    The Privacy Act Requests system of records stores records in this system electronically. The records are stored on the Commission's secure network, and on secure back-up media.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Information covered by this system of records notice may be retrieved by assigned control number, name of requester, or by subject of request.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records for this system will be maintained in accordance with General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. All approved schedules are available at http://www.cftc.gov.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures. Administrative safeguards include agency-wide training and procedures for safeguarding personally identifiable information. Technical security measures within CFTC include restrictions on computer access to authorized individuals who have a legitimate need to know the information; required use of strong passwords that are frequently changed; multi-factor authentication for remote access and access to many CFTC network components; use of encryption for certain data types and transfers; firewalls and intrusion detection applications; and regular review of security procedures and best practices to enhance security. Physical safeguards include restrictions on building access to authorized individuals, 24-hour security guard service, and maintenance of records in lockable offices and filing cabinets.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in Privacy Act access request.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.8 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act amendment request.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Office of General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20581. See 17 CFR 146.3 for full details on what to include in a Privacy Act notification request.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    HISTORY:

    A previous version of this SORN was published in the Federal Register on February 02, 2011 at 76 FR 5973.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2018, by the Commission. Robert Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15392 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2018-FSA-0029] Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a New Matching Program.

    SUMMARY:

    This provides notice of the re-establishment of the matching program between the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). The purpose of the matching program is to assist the Department in facilitating borrowers who owe a balance on one or more student loans under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), should they wish to do so, to more efficiently and effectively apply for a total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge of their student loans. The matching program also will assist the Department in allowing recipients of Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grants under title IV of the HEA who are obligated to repay due to failure to complete their agreement to serve, should they wish to do so, to more efficiently and effectively apply for a TPD discharge of their agreement to serve.

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on the proposed matching program on or before August 20, 2018.

    The matching program will go into effect 30 days after the publication of this notice, on July 19, 2018, unless comments have been received from interested members of the public requiring modification and republication of the notice. The matching program will continue for 18 months after the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months, if the respective Data Integrity Boards (DIBs) of the Department and SSA determine that the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address them to Brenda Seidel, Management and Program Analyst, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5320, Telephone: 202-377-3982.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pam Eliadis, Service Director, System Operations & Aid Delivery Management, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5320. Telephone: 202-377-3554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We provide this notice in accordance with Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act) (5 U.S.C. 552a); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989); and OMB Circular No. A-108.

    Participating Agencies: The U.S. Department of Education and the Social Security Administration.

    Authority For Conducting The Matching Program: The Department's legal authority to enter into this matching program and to disclose information as part of this matching program is sections 420N(c), 437(a)(1), 455(a)(1), and 464(c)(1)(F)(ii and iii) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070g-2(c), 1087(a)(1), 1087e(a)(1)), and 1087dd(c)(1)(F)(ii and iii)), the regulations promulgated pursuant to these sections (34 CFR 674.61(b), 682.402(c), 685.213, and 686.42(b)), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)).

    SSA's legal authority to disclose information as part of this computer matching program is section 1106 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1306), the regulations promulgated pursuant to that section (20 CFR part 401), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)).

    Purpose(s): The matching program will assist the Department in facilitating borrowers who owe a balance on one or more student loans under title IV of the HEA, should they wish to do so, to more efficiently and effectively apply for a TPD discharge of their student loans. The matching program also will assist the Department in allowing recipients of TEACH Grants under title IV of the HEA who are obligated to repay due to failure to complete their agreement to serve, should they wish to do so, to more efficiently and effectively apply for a TPD discharge of their TEACH Grant service obligations.

    Categories of Individuals: The Department will disclose to SSA individually identifiable information about individual borrowers who owe a balance on one or more loans under Title IV of the HEA. The Department also will disclose to SSA individually identifiable information about TEACH grant recipients who fail to complete their agreements to serve. SSA will compare the data provided by the Department with SSA data recorded in SSA's Disability Control File (DCF) and Master Beneficiary Record (MBR).

    Categories of Records: The records to be used in the matching program are described as follows:

    The Department will disclose to SSA the name, date of birth (DOB), and Social Security number (SSN) of individuals who owe a balance on one or more student loans under title IV of the HEA from the system of records entitled “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06), as last published in the Federal Register in full on June 28, 2013 (78 FR 38963) and as last updated on April 2, 2014 (79 FR 18534).

    The data from the Department described in the preceding paragraph will be matched with SSA data recorded in the Disability Control File, which originate from the Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits (SSR/SVB), 60-0103, published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1830) and updated on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723), and the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) SSA/ORSIS 60-0090, published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1826) and updated on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723) and July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542), in order to provide the Department with Medical Improvement Not Expected disability data.

    System(s) of Records: The Department will disclose to SSA information from, and maintain information obtained from SSA in, the Department's system of records entitled “National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)” (18-11-06), as last published in the Federal Register in full on June 28, 2013 (78 FR 38963) and last updated on April 2, 2014 (79 FR 18534). SSA will disclose to the Department information from SSA's “Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits” system of records 60-0103, published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1830) and updated on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723), and the Master Beneficiary Record system of records 60-0090, published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2006 (71 FR 1826) and updated on December 10, 2007 (72 FR 69723) and July 5, 2013 (78 FR 40542).

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (such as, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to Lisa Tessitore, Program Operations Specialist, Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20202-5320. Telephone: 202-377-3249.

    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. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

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

    James F. Manning, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15457 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ18-16-000] Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 3, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC submitted its second revised tariff filing: Oncor TFO Tariff Rate Changes to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for 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 FERCOnlineSu[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15324 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ18-15-000] Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 3, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate Changes to be effective 7/1/2018.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 24, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15323 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0007; FRL-9980-26] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Active Ingredients AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), email address: [email protected], Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P), email address: [email protected] Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), email address: [email protected] The mailing address and phone number for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    New Active Ingredients

    1. File Symbol: 524-ALG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0245. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. Product name: LCO Liquid Additive. Active ingredient: Plant regulator—LCO MOR116 (chemical name: D-glucose, O-6-deoxy-2-O-methyl-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1→6)-O-[O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-; and D-glucose, O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-[6-deoxy-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1→6)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-) at 0.0000266%. Proposed use: Seed treatment. Contact: BPPD.

    2. File Symbol: 524-ALU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0245. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167. Product name: LCO MOR116 MP. Active ingredient: Plant regulator—LCO MOR116 (chemical name: D-glucose, O-6-deoxy-2-O-methyl-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1→6)-O-[O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-; and D-glucose, O-2-deoxy-2-[[(11Z)-1-oxo-11-octadecen-1-yl]amino]-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-β-D-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-O-[6-deoxy-α-L-galactopyranosyl-(1→6)]-2-(acetylamino)-2-deoxy-) at 0.013%. Proposed use: Manufacturing-use product. Contact: BPPD.

    3. File Symbol: 7969-UEE. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: VediraTM Cockroach Gel Bait. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.25%. Proposed Use: To kill Asian and German cockroaches in and around commercial, institutional, and warehousing establishments [including computer facilities, food/feed processing plants, hospitals, hotels, housing and containment areas (i.e. arenas, barns, cages, hatcheries, houses, hutches, kennels, parlors, pens, sheds, shelters, stables) for animals (i.e. avian, bovine, canine, equine, feline, hircine, leporine, murine, porcine), laboratories, milk houses, motels, nursing homes, pet shops, poultry facilities (including hatchery, egg packaging, and breeding facilities), restaurants, schools, sewers, supermarkets, warehouses, and zoos], residences, and transportation equipment (aircraft—cargo areas only, boats, buses, ships, and trains). Contact: RD.

    4. File Symbol: 7969-UEG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: NurizmaTM SC Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide—Broflanilide at 30%. Proposed Use: For control of soil insects in corn grown for seed, field corn, popcorn, sweet corn; and tuberous and corm vegetables, Crop Subgroup 1C. Contact: RD.

    5. File Symbol: 7969-UEN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: CimegraTM SC Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 10%. Proposed Use: For control of soil insects in corn grown for seed, field corn, popcorn, sweet corn; and tuberous and corm vegetables, Crop Subgroup 1C. Contact: RD.

    6. File Symbol: (7969-EUP-UT). Applicant: BASF Corporation. Pesticide Chemical: Broflanilide. Summary of Request: The purpose of the requested EUP is to generate efficacy data on structural protection applications using conventional application equipment and the BASF Corporation-patented HP Unit to protect structures from termites. Contact: RD.

    7. File Symbol: 7969-UER. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: TerindaTM Foam Termiticide/Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.0045%. Proposed Use: To kill termites (drywood and subterranean) and foraging carpenter ants in and around apartments, homes, food/feed handling establishments (non-food/feed areas), restaurants, hospitals and nursing homes (non-patient areas), hotels and motels, hobby greenhouses, interiorscapes, mobile homes, office buildings, schools, transportation equipment (buses, cargo trucks, trailers, and trains), warehouses and other commercial and industrial buildings in addition to outdoor spot treatments. Contact: RD.

    8. File Symbol: 7969-UEU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: VediraTM Ant Gel Bait. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.02%. Proposed Use: To kill ants (acrobat, Argentine, bigheaded, black carpenter, crazy, field, ghost, honey, little black, odorous house, pavement, rover, and thief) in and around commercial, industrial, and residential buildings including apartments, garages, food storage areas, homes, hospitals and nursing homes, hotels, motels, office buildings, restaurants and other food handling establishments, schools, supermarkets, transportation equipment (buses, boats, ships, trains, planes), utilities, and warehouses. Contact: RD.

    9. File Symbol: 7969-URA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: VediraTM Granular Ant Bait. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.005%. Proposed Use: To kill ants (acrobat, Argentine, bigheaded, crazy, Florida carpenter, foraging fire, ghost, little black, odorous house, pavement, rover, and thief) and crickets in and around commercial buildings and other structures, food handling facilities, food processing plants, food storage areas, golf courses, homes, hotels, meat packing plants, lawns, motels, restaurants and other food handling establishments, non-occupied patient areas of hospitals and nursing homes, parks, residential areas, schools, supermarkets, turf and warehouses. Contact: RD.

    10. File Symbol: 7969-URG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: VediraTM Granular Fly Bait. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.025%. Proposed Use: To kill flies (blue bottle, house, phorid, and small fruit or vinegar) in and around Commercial buildings, Industrial buildings, and Other manmade structures; Garbage or refuse bins and receptacles; or Other areas where flies may be a nuisance or health hazard Bakeries; Campgrounds; Carnivals; Circuses; Concert arenas; Confectionaries; County and state fair facilities; Dairy areas; Festival grounds, Food handling establishments; Food processing plants; Food storage areas; Food vending structures; Golf courses; Grain mills; Granaries; Hospitals; Hotels; Housing and containment areas (i.e., Arenas, Barns, Cages, Hatcheries, Houses, Hutches, Kennels, Parlors, Pens, Sheds, Shelters, Stables) for Animals (i.e., Avian, Bovine, Canine, Equine, Feline, Hircine, Leporine, Murine, Porcine); Interiorscapes; Libraries; Marinas; Meat, Poultry and egg processing facilities; Meat packing plants; Milk houses; Motels; Museums; Nursing homes; Pavilions; Research facilities; Resorts; Restaurants; Mobile food vendors; Parking ramps; Poultry facilities (including: Hatchery, Egg packaging, Breeding facilities); Public picnic areas; Public restrooms; Recreational rest areas; Schools; Supermarkets; Temporary shelters; Theme parks; Terminals; Transportation equipment (Barges, Ships, Trailers, Trains, Trucks); Utilities; Warehouses; Waysides; Wildlife refuge areas; Zoos. Contact: RD.

    11. File Symbol: 7969-URI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: TeraxxaTM Insecticide Seed Treatment. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 34.93%. Proposed/Use: Seed treatment for insect control in wheat (all types), barley, oats, rye, triticale, amaranth grain, buckwheat (all types), cañihua, chia, cram-cram, huauzontle, quinoa, and spelt. Contact: RD.

    12. File Symbol: 7969-URL. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product Name: TerindaTM SC Termiticide/Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 9.47%. Proposed Use: To kill subterranean termites outdoors around apartments, homes, restaurants, hospitals and nursing homes (non-patient areas), hotels and motels, mobile homes, office buildings, schools, transportation equipment (cargo trucks, trailers, and train cars ONLY), warehouses and other commercial and industrial buildings and in transportation equipment. Contact: RD.

    13. File Symbol: 7969-URO. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: TeraxxaTM F4 Insecticide and Fungicide Seed Treatment. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 1.55%, Fluxapyroxad at 0.78%, Pyraclostrobin at 1.55%, Triticonazole at 1.55%, and Metalaxyl at 0.93%. Proposed Use: Seed treatment for insect control in wheat (all types), barley, oats, rye, triticale, amaranth grain, buckwheat (all types), cañihua, chia, cram-cram, huauzontle, quinoa, and spelt. Contact: RD.

    14. File Symbol: 7969-URT. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: PT VediraTM Pressurized Insecticide. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.20%. Proposed Use: To kill ants (excluding carpenter), bed bugs, crickets, Indian meal moths (adult and larvae), millipedes, silverfish, spiders (including black widow and brown recluse), and stored product pest beetles; and to control ants (foraging harvester and Pharaoh), beetles (Asian lady), cockroaches (German), flies (house and stable), kuzu bugs, and stink bugs (brown marmorated) in and around Apartments, Campgrounds, Food storage areas, Homes, Hospitals**, Hotels, Meat packing and food processing plants, Motels, Nursing homes **, Resorts, Restaurants and other food handling establishments, Schools, Supermarkets, Transportation equipment (Airplanes—cargo areas only, Buses, Boats, Ships, Trains, and Trucks), Utilities, Warehouses and other commercial and industrial buildings. Contact: RD.

    15. File Symbol: 7969-URU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: BASF Corporation. Product name: VediraTM Pressurized Fly Bait. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 0.125%. Proposed Use: To kill flies (blue bottle, filth, flesh, house, moth, phorid, and small fruit or vinegar flies) and house fly larvae in and around Commercial, residential, and industrial buildings and other manmade structures; Garbage or refuse bins and receptacles; or Other areas where flies may be a nuisance or health hazard: Apartments; Bakeries; Campgrounds; Carnivals; Circuses; Concert arenas; Condominiums; Confectionaries; County and state fair facilities; Dairy areas; Farm houses; Day care facilities; Festival grounds, Food handling establishments; Food processing plants; Food storage areas; Food vending structures; Garages; Golf courses; Grain mills; Granaries; Homes; Hospitals; Hotels; Housing and containment areas (i.e., Arenas, Barns, Cages, Hatcheries, Houses, Hutches, Kennels, Parlors, Pens, Sheds, Shelters, Stables) for animals (i.e., Avian, Bovine, Canine, Equine, Feline, Hircine, Leporine, Murine, Porcine); Interiorscapes; Libraries; Marinas; Meat, poultry and egg processing facilities; Meat packing plants; Milk houses; Mobile homes; Motor homes; Motels; Museums; Nursing homes; Outdoor living areas; Pavilions; Porches; Research facilities; Resorts; Restaurants; Mobile food vendors; Parking ramps; Poultry facilities (including: Hatchery, Egg packaging, Breeding facilities, Houses); Public picnic areas; Public restrooms; Recreational rest areas; Residential backyards; Schools; Supermarkets; Tents or temporary shelters; Theme parks; Terminals; Transportation equipment (Buses, Barges, Boats, Ships, Trailers, Trains, Trucks); Utilities; Warehouses; Waysides; Wildlife refuge areas; Zoos. Contact: RD.

    16. File Symbol: 86203-EI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0053. Applicant: Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc. (MCAG). Product name: Broflanilide Technical. Active ingredient: Insecticide-Broflanilide at 99.68%. Proposed Use: For formulation into insecticides for 1) terrestrial food crops and crop groups: Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables (Crop Group 5), Canola, Corn, Cotton, Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits) (Crop Group 8), Herbs and Spices (Crop Group 19), Leafy Vegetables (Except Brassica Vegetables) (Crop Group 4), Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried) (Crop Group 6), Soybean, Tea, and Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C); and the following seed treatment uses: Cereal Grains (Crop Group 15), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1), and Soybeans. 2) Non-crop uses: Food-handling establishments; indoor and outdoor residential and commercial as well as termiticide applications. Contact: RD

    17. File Symbol: 80286-EI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0370. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St., Riverside, CA 92507. Product name: SPLAT FAW GL3. Active ingredients: Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromone—(Z)-7-Dodecenyl Acetate at 0.09%, (Z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate at 2.55%, and (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate at 0.36%. Proposed use: End-use product to be used as mating distruptant for lepidopteran species. Contact: BPPD.

    18. File Symbol: 80286-E.O.. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0370. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St., Riverside, CA 92507. Product name: SPLAT FAW GL4. Active ingredients: Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromone—(Z)-7-Dodecenyl Acetate at 0.12%, (Z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate at 3.40%, and (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate at 0.48%. Proposed use: End-use product to be used as mating distruptant for lepidopteran species. Contact: BPPD.

    19. File Symbol: 80286-ET. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0370. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St., Riverside, CA 92507. Product name: ISCA FAW MP. Active ingredients: Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromone—(Z)-7-Dodecenyl Acetate at 2.86%, (Z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate at 81.00%, and (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate at 11.44%. Proposed use: Manufacturing-use product for formulation into end-use products to be used as mating distruptants for lepidopteran species. Contact: BPPD.

    20. File Symbol: 80286-GN. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0370. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St., Riverside, CA 92507. Product name: SPLAT FAW GL5. Active ingredients: Straight Chain Lepidopteran Pheromone—(Z)-7-Dodecenyl Acetate at 0.15%, (Z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate at 4.25%, and (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate at 0.60%. Proposed use: End-use product to be used as mating distruptant for lepidopteran species. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15463 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0008; FRL-9980-25] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by the Docket Identification (ID) Number and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected], Michael Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotice[email protected] The mailing address for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-895, 100-1259, 100-1211. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0143. Applicant: The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Abamectin. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Carrot, roots; Tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A; Leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B; Arugula; Garden cress; Upland cress; Celtuce; Fennel, Florence. Contact: RD.

    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-895, 100-1259, 100-1211. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0143. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300 Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Abamectin. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Edible-podded legume vegetable, subgroup 6A; Succulent shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6B; Dried shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6C, except soybean. Contact: RD.

    3. EPA Registration Number(s): 264-824, 264-825, and 264-1055. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0531. Applicant: Bayer CropScience LP2, T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Prothioconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Crop group expansion from current use on canola to Crop Subgroup 20A (Rapeseed subgroup). Contact: RD.

    4. EPA Registration Number(s): 4787-55, 4787-61, 279-3557, 279-3588, 279-3594, and 279-3596. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0297. Applicant: Cheminova A/S, P.O. Box 9, DK-7620, Lemvig, Denmark and on behalf of FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Active ingredient: Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Alfalfa, Barley, Corn, and Rice. Contact: (RD).

    5. EPA Registration Numbers: 62719-631, 62719-623, 62719-625. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0179. Applicant: The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: sulfoxaflor. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Artichoke, globe; Asparagus; Bushberry, subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry, subgroup 13-07A; Sunflower, subgroup 20B; Fruit, stone, group 12-12; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable, subgroup 22B; Nut, tree, group 14-12; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16, except cauliflower; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress; Celtuce; Fennel, Florence; and Kohlrabi. Contact: RD.

    6. EPA Registration Numbers: 68539-3, 68539-4, 68539-7, 68539-9 and 68539-10. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks, Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd., Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564. Active ingredients: Trichoderma virens strain G-41 and/or Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For expanded field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead sprinkler chemigation). Contact: BPPD.

    7. EPA Registration Number: 68539-8. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks, Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd., Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564. Active ingredient: Trichoderma virens strain G-41. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For manufacturing of Trichoderma virens strain G-41 pesticide products with expanded field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead sprinkler chemigation). Contact: BPPD.

    8. EPA Registration Number: 68539-12. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0256. Applicant: Bioworks, Inc. (d/b/a BioWorks), 100 Rawson Rd., Suite 205, Victor, NY 14564. Active ingredient: Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: For manufacturing of Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22 pesticide products with expanded field and greenhouse uses (e.g., overhead sprinkler chemigation). Contact: BPPD.

    9. EPA Registration Numbers and File Symbol: 71512-26, 71512-27, 71512-GU. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0194. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd, Suite A, Concord, OH, 44077. Active Ingredient: Cyclaniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Citrus fruit (crop group 10-10); tuberous & corm vegetables (crop group 1C); and berry & small fruit (crop subgroups 13-07A, 13-07B, 13-07E, except grape, 13-07G). Contact: RD.

    10. EPA Registration Number and File Symbols: 71512-27, 71512-GE, 71512-GG. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0194. Applicant: ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd, Suite A, Concord, OH, 44077. Active Ingredient: Cyclaniliprole. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: Indoor & outdoor ornamentals, Christmas trees, non-bearing fruit and nut trees, vines in shade houses, nurseries, and greenhouses. Contact: RD.

    11. EPA Registration Number: 74054-1, 66222-47. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0275. Applicant: Makhteshim AGAN of North America, INC., D/B/A/ADAMA, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27604. Active ingredient: clofentezine. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Guava. Contact: RD.

    12. EPA File Symbol: 80286-EA. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0352. Applicant: ISCA Technologies, Inc., 1230 W. Spring St. Riverside, CA 92507. Active Ingredient: Cypermethrin. Product type: insecticide. Proposed use: palm trees (including date palms, coconut palms, oil palms and ornamental palms). Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 27, 2018. Delores Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15448 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice: 2018-6012] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    EXIM's borrowers, financial institution policy holders and guaranteed lenders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for EXIM support. For direct loans and loan guarantees, the completed form is required to be submitted at time of disbursement and held by either the guaranteed lender or EXIM. For MT insurance, the completed forms are held by the financial institution, only to be submitted to EXIM in the event of a claim filing.

    EXIM uses the referenced form to obtain information from exporters regarding the export transaction and content sourcing. These details are necessary to determine the value and legitimacy of EXIM financing support and claims submitted. It also provides the financial institutions a check on the export transaction's eligibility at the time it is fulfilling a financing request.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov (EIB 11-05) or by email to [email protected], or by mail to Mia L. Johnson, Export-Import Bank, 811 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20571. The information collection tool can be reviewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib11-05.pdf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and Form Number: EIB 11-05 Exporter's Certificate for Loan Guarantee & MT Insurance Programs.

    OMB Number: 3048-0043.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: The information collected will allow EXIM to determine compliance and content for transaction requests submitted to the Export-Import Bank under its insurance, guarantee, and direct loan programs.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 4,000.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,000 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As required.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing time per year: 67 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $2,847.50 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $3,417.

    Bassam Doughman, IT Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15422 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK [Public Notice 2018-6013] Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    Export-Import Bank of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Submission for OMB review and comments request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    EXIM's financial institution policy holders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for EXIM support. The completed forms are held by the financial institution policy holders, only to be submitted to EXIM in the event of a claim filing. A requirement of EXIM's policies is that the insured financial institution policy holder obtains a completed Exporter's Certificate at the time it provides financing for an export. This form will enable EXIM to identify the specific details of the export transaction. These details are necessary for determining the eligibility of claims for approval. EXIM staff and contractors review this information to assist in determining that an export transaction, on which a claim for non-payment has been submitted, meets all of the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov (EIB 94-07) or by email [email protected], or by mail to Mia L. Johnson, Export-Import Bank, 811 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20571. The form can be viewed at https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib-94-07.pdf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles and Form Number: EIB 94-07 Exporters Certificate for Use with a Short Term Export Credit Insurance Policy.

    OMB Number: 3048-0041.

    Type of Review: Regular.

    Need and Use: EXIM uses the referenced form to obtain exporter certification regarding the export transaction, U.S. content, non-military use, non-nuclear use, compliance with EXIM's country cover policy, and their eligibility to participate in USG programs. These details are necessary to determine the legitimacy of claims submitted. It also provides the financial institution policy holder a check on the export transaction's eligibility, at the time it is fulfilling a financing request.

    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and services.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 240.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 60 hours.

    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As required.

    Government Expenses:

    Reviewing time per year: 12 hours.

    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.

    Average Cost per Year: $510 (time*wages).

    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.

    Total Government Cost: $612.

    Bassam Doughman, IT Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15424 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected].

    Agreement No.: 010979-064.

    Agreement Name: Caribbean Shipowners Association.

    Parties: Crowley Caribbean Services LLC; Hybur Ltd.; King Ocean Services Limited, Inc.; Seaboard Marine Ltd.; Tropical Shipping & Construction Co., Ltd.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.

    Filing Parties: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes CMA CGM SA as a party to the Agreement.

    Proposed Effective Date: 7/12/2018.

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/1194.

    Agreement No.: 011426-065.

    Agreement Name: West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement.

    Parties: King Ocean Services Limited, Inc. and Seaboard Marine Ltd.

    Filing Parties: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes CMA CGM SA as a party to the Agreement.

    Proposed Effective Date: 7/12/2018.

    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/939.

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15421 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-MA-2018-06; Docket No. 2018-0002, Sequence No. 15] Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Relocation Allowances—Waiver of Certain Provisions of the FTR Chapter 302 for Official Relocation Travel to Locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria AGENCY:

    Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Bulletin 18-07, Relocation Allowances—Waiver of certain provisions of the FTR Chapter 302 for official relocation travel to locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to inform Federal agencies that certain provisions of the FTR governing official relocation travel expenses are temporarily waived for United States (U.S.) Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico locations impacted by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. As a result of the storm damage caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, agencies should consider delaying all non-essential relocations to the affected areas given the statutory 120-day maximum for Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expenses (TQSE). Due to the lasting effects of the storm damage to these affected areas, finding lodging facilities and/or adequate meals may be difficult, and distances involved may be great, resulting in increased costs for relocation per diem expenses. FTR Bulletin 18-07 and all other FTR Bulletins can be found at www.gsa.gov/ftrbulletin.

    DATES:

    Applicable: July 19, 2018.

    Applicability: The Bulletin is retroactively applicable for official relocation travel performed on or after September 7, 2017, the date of the Presidential Disaster Declaration DR-4335, to locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands affected by Hurricane Irma, and September 10, 2017, the date of the Presidential Disaster Declaration DR-4336 to locations in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Irma. The FTR Bulletin expires once year from the respective applicable dates, unless extended or rescinded by this office.

    The Bulletin is also retroactively applicable for official relocation travel performed on or after September 20, 2017, the date Presidential Disaster Declarations DR-4339 and DR-4340 were issued, to locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Maria. The FTR Bulletin will expire one year from the applicable date, unless extended or rescinded by this office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick Miller, Program Analyst, Office of Government-Wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 202-501-3822, or by email at [email protected] Please cite Notice of FTR Bulletin 18-07.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Alexander Kurien, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, Office of Government-Wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15398 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, OGE seeks comment on the development of a Generic Information Collection Request for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service delivery for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice announces OGE's intent to submit this collection to the Office of Management and Budget for approval and allows for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this notice to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for OGE, via fax at 202-395-6974 or email at [email protected] (Include reference to “OGE Fast Track Generic Clearance comment” in the subject line of the message.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Grant Anderson at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9318; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    OMB Number: To be determined.

    Needs and Uses: The proposed information collection provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the agency's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback means information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not a statistical survey that yields 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.

    OGE expects to use various methods (e.g., focus groups, customer satisfaction surveys, comment cards), to solicit feedback. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public and other agency stakeholders. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the agency's services will be unavailable.

    The agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:

    • The collections are voluntary;

    • The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;

    • The collections are non-controversial;

    • The collections are focused on the awareness, understanding, attitudes, preferences, or experiences of the public or other stakeholders in order to improve existing or future services, products, or communication materials;

    • Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary;

    • Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release to the public;

    • Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and

    • Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does 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 non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to 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.

    As a general matter, information collections submitted under this generic clearance will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.

    A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this information collection was published on April 12, 2018 (83 FR 15837-15838). OGE did not receive any comments in response.

    Current Action: New information collection request (generic).

    Type of Review: New.

    Affected Public: Individuals; Business or Other For-Profit Institutions; Not-For-Profit Institutions; State or Local Government.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 45,000.

    Projected average burden estimates for the next three years:

    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 40.

    Average Number of Respondents per Activity: 1,125.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 45,000.

    Average Minutes per Response: 3 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,250 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Request for Comments: Agency and public comment is again invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). The comments will become a matter of public record.

    Approved: July 11, 2018. David Apol, General Counsel and Acting Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15411 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket No.: 107162018-1111-03] Notice of Proposed Subaward Under a Council-Selected Restoration Component Award AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council) publishes notice of proposed subawards from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to the Mississippi Wildlife Federation and the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation, two Mississippi nonprofit organizations, for the purpose of education and outreach in accordance with the Sea Grant Education and Outreach (EOE) Award, as approved in the Initial Funded Priority List.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please send questions by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III) of the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(E)(ii)(III)) and Treasury's implementing regulation at 31 CFR 34.401(b) require that, for purposes of awards made under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, a State or Federal award recipient may make a grant or subaward to or enter into a cooperative agreement with a nongovernmental entity that equals or exceeds 10 percent of the total amount of the award provided to the State or Federal award recipient only if certain notice requirements are met. Specifically, at least 30 days before the State or Federal award recipient enters into such an agreement, the Council must publish in the Federal Register and deliver to specified Congressional Committees the name of the recipient and subrecipient; a brief description of the activity, including its purpose; and the amount of the award. This notice accomplishes the Federal Register requirement.

    Description of Proposed Action

    As specified in the Initial Funded Priority List, which is available on the Council's website at https://www.restorethegulf.gov/council-selected-restoration-component/funded-priorities-list, RESTORE Act funds in the amount of $750,000 will support the Sea Grant Education and Outreach (EOE) Award to MDEQ. As part of this project, MDEQ will provide a subaward in the amount of $84,150 to the Mississippi Wildlife Federation for enhancement of the Mississippi Habitat Stewards Program. Through the subaward, the Mississippi Wildlife Federation will expand an existing curriculum that relays the ecosystem benefits of upstream land conservation, habitat restoration and water quality restoration. The expanded curriculum will be offered for three different targeted audiences at different levels: Habitat steward volunteers; youth, ages 9-12; and local high school environmental clubs.

    MDEQ will also provide a subaward in the amount of $99,050 to the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation (PGCLC). The PGCLC will conduct an outreach initiative that includes three components: The development of science-based communication products for use with a general audience that summarize and explain the benefits of land conservation in the Gulf coast region in lay terminology; field visits that bring together stakeholders to illustrate, in the field and by boat, the connectivity that land conservation practices along our coastal streams have to water quality in the northern Gulf of Mexico and to our marine and estuarine living resources; and the development of a short digital film that illustrates the connection between riparian and wetland forests and marine and estuarine living resources in the northern Gulf of Mexico.

    Keala J. Hughes, Director of External Affairs & Tribal Relations, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15451 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry [60Day-18-18AJK Docket No. ATSDR-2018-0002] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled “Per- or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Exposure Assessments.” ATSDR and the CDC National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) will conduct a minimum of eight exposure assessments (EAs) at current or former military installations with known PFAS contamination in drinking water, groundwater, or another water source.

    DATES:

    ATSDR must receive written comments on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. ATSDR-2018-0002 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. ATSDR will post, without change, all relevant comments to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to the OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:

    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.

    5. Assess information collection costs.

    Proposed Project

    Per- or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Exposure Assessments—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of man-made chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products worldwide since the 1950s. Although some PFAS are no longer produced in the United States, they many remain in the environment and may impact people's health. Thus, PFAS are contaminants that have gained national prominence over the last decade.

    Under Section 8006 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and CDC National Center for Environmental Health (ATSDR/NCEH) are requesting a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act clearance for a new information collection request (ICR). ATSDR/NCEH will conduct EAs at current or former domestic military installations known to have PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, or any other sources of water. The annualized number of EAs assumes the following. ATSDR/NCEH will conduct a minimum of eight EAs, but ATSDR/NCEH may complete an additional seven for a total of 15 EAs. Therefore, ATSDR/NCEH anticipates conducting five PFAS EAs each year for three years.

    All eligible respondents will be consented before being included in each EA. The consent forms will include adult consent, and parental permission and child assent forms, as appropriate. Each consented respondent will provide a serum and a urine sample. In addition, heads of households from ten percent of households using tap water for their drinking water will consent to provide tap water and indoor dust samples. The consent forms will include permission to store some biospecimens and environmental samples for future analysis and will include permission to recontact respondents for potential investigations or studies in the future. ATSDR will also collect contact information to provide respondents with their individual sampling results.

    Household Eligibility Screener: ATSDR/NCEH will conduct the PFAS EAs in communities with populations living on or near current or former military installations. ATSDR/NCEH will recruit a desired sample size of 379 respondents per EA (1,895 total per year) using statistical household sampling methods. Eligibility criteria for individuals include specific age intervals (i.e., children older than three years given the lack of NHANES comparison data for younger children), lack of bleeding disorders that would prevent a blood draw, and time of residency (i.e., at least one year in the home).

    Applying an average U.S. household size of 2.5 members, per EA, ATSDR/NCEH will enroll respondents from 152 eligible households (379/2.5). To identify the 152 eligible households, we further assume a 65 percent household eligibility rate. This will require administering a 5-minute eligibility screener to 234 heads-of-households per EA (152*100/65), or to 1,170 heads-of-households per year (234 × 5). The annual time burden requested for eligibility screening is 98 hours.

    Exposure Assessment Questionnaire for Biological and Environmental Testing for Adults, Parents, or Children: ATSDR/NCEH will administer an exposure questionnaire to all consented respondents that includes questions associated with potential exposure to PFAS both inside and outside the home (e.g., work or school). In addition, the adult questionnaire also includes several questions associated with water use and flooring type while the child questionnaire includes questions regarding playing in soil; these questions are intended to evaluate potential exposure and to support the environmental testing. The time associated with administering the questionnaire and completing the biological sampling is approximately 30 minutes for 1,440 adults (720 hours). The time associated is 15 minutes for 264 parents responding for their children, 3-11 years old (66 hours), and for 191 children, 12-17 years old, who respond for themselves (48 hours). ATSDR/NCEH will use the questionnaire and laboratory results to identify likely exposure scenarios.

    Household Recruitment Script for Environmental Sampling: The households providing environmental samples will be randomly selected from households that report using tap water for drinking water. ATSDR/NCEH will recruit 10 percent subset of these eligible households to collect tap water and indoor dust samples. Assuming a 65 percent response rate, ATSDR/NCEH will administer a 5-minute recruitment script to 23 heads-of households who are eligible to take part in each EA (152/10*100/65). The time required to administer the recruitment script is 5 minutes. This will result in annual recruitment from 117 heads-of-households and 10 hours for five EAs.

    Environmental Sample Collection Form: Again, assuming a 65 percent response rate, to meet our sample size goal of 10 percent of eligible households, ATSDR/NCEH will consent and collect samples from approximately 15 households per EA or households annually (152*10/100*5). The average time burden is estimated as 15 minutes per response, or 19 hours annually.

    ATSDR estimates the total annualized time burden is 961 hours. Participation is voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Public health professionals, environmental risk managers, and other decision makers can use EA results to make informed decisions about the sources and impact of PFAS contamination in environmental media within their own community and jurisdiction. The data will support their recommendations for public health actions to reduce or eliminate harmful levels of PFAS in the local environment. These EAs are not intended to yield information about PFAS exposure that will be generalized beyond the defined boundaries of each investigation; however, ATSDR/NCEH will use these EA findings to inform a future national PFAS health study.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Potential EA Heads-of-Households Household Eligibility Screener 1,170 1 5/60 98 EA Adults Exposure Questionnaire for Biological and Environmental Testing (Adults) 1,440 1 30/60 720 EA Parents EA Questionnaire for Biological Testing (Child) 264 1 15/60 66 EA Children EA Questionnaire for Biological Testing (Child) 191 1 15/60 48 EA Heads-of-Households Household Recruitment Script for Environmental Sampling 117 1 5/60 10 Environmental Sample Collection Form 76 1 15/60 19 Total 961
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15437 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1224] Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.” The guidance provides recommendations for sponsors, clinical investigators, contract research organizations (CROs), institutional review boards (IRBs), and other interested parties on the use of electronic health record (EHR) data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. The guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued in May 2016.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1224 for “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations; Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cheryl Grandinetti, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2500, [email protected]; Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911, [email protected]; or Bakul Patel, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5458, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-5528, [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.” The guidance is intended to assist sponsors, clinical investigators, CROs, IRBs, and other interested parties on the use of EHR data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations. In an effort to modernize and streamline clinical investigations, the goals of the guidance are to facilitate the use of EHR data in clinical investigations and to promote the interoperability of EHR and EDC systems.

    In the Federal Register of May 17, 2016 (81 FR 30540), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance. FDA received numerous comments on the draft guidance, and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. A summary of changes includes clarifying the following: (1) The types of clinical investigations using EHR data as source data that fall under the scope of the guidance; (2) recommendations on the use of EHR and EDC systems that are interoperable or fully integrated; (3) recommendations on the use of certified and noncertified EHR technology; (4) how electronic source data principles apply to EHR data used as source data; and (5) inspection, recordkeeping, and record retention requirements. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued in May 2016.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Electronic Health Record Data in Clinical Investigations.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The guidance pertains to sponsors, clinical investigators, CROs, IRBs, and other interested parties who use EHR data as electronic source data in FDA-regulated clinical investigations and who send certain information to FDA or others or who keep certain records and make them available to FDA inspectors. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 11 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0303; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 812.140 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The use of EHRs as a source of data, as described in the guidance, would not result in any new costs, including capital costs or operating and maintenance costs, because sponsors and others already have experience and are experienced with using computer-based equipment and software necessary to be consistent with the guidance.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15390 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0809] Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease Product AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that EPIDIOLEX (cannabidiol oral solution) manufactured by GW Research Ltd., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Althea Cuff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4061, Fax: 301-796-9856, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that EPIDIOLEX (cannabidiol oral solution) manufactured by GW Research Ltd., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher. EPIDIOLEX (cannabidiol oral solution) is indicated for the treatment of seizures associated with Dravet Syndrome or Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome in patients 2 years of age and older.

    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further information about EPIDIOLEX (cannabidiol oral solution), go to the “[email protected]” website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15393 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2567] E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance entitled “E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The guidance describes general principles for planning and designing multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). The guidance is intended to increase the acceptability of data from MRCTs as the primary source of evidence supporting marketing approval in global regulatory submissions and thereby facilitate more efficient drug development and earlier access to medicines.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2567 for “E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials; International Council for Harmonisation.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding the guidance: Aloka Chakravarty, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 21, Rm. 3514, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1655; or R. Douglas Pratt, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2640.

    Regarding the ICH: Amanda Roache, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4548.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations from around the world have participated in many important initiatives to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

    ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the FDA; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.

    The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers. The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA guidance.

    In the Federal Register of September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62506), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multi-Regional Clinical Trials.” The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by November 8, 2016.

    After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in November 2017.

    The guidance provides guidance on general principles for planning and designing MRCTs. MRCTs conducted according to the guidance will investigate treatment effects in overall populations with multiple ethnic factors (intrinsic and extrinsic factors as described in Appendix A of the ICH guidance entitled “E5 Ethnic Factors in the Acceptability of Foreign Clinical Data”) and evaluate the consistency of treatment effects across populations. The guidance explicitly states that MRCTs are planned under the assumption that the treatment effect applies to the entire target population, particularly to the regions included in the trial. The concept of “consistency of treatment effect” across regions is defined in the text and in the glossary, and the terms “pooled populations” and “pooled regions” are also added to the glossary. The guidance further clarifies that prespecified strategies for pooling regions and/or subpopulations provide flexibility in sample-size allocation to regions, and that the strategies facilitate the assessment of consistency in treatment effects across regions.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of Multiregional Clinical Trials.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15395 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0643] Labeling for Biosimilar Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Labeling for Biosimilar Products.” This guidance is intended to help applicants develop draft labeling for proposed biosimilar products. The recommendations for prescription drug labeling in this guidance pertain only to the prescribing information (commonly referred to as the package insert), except for certain recommendations pertaining to FDA-approved patient labeling (e.g., Patient Information, Medication Guide, and Instructions for Use). This guidance provides an overview of FDA's recommendations for labeling for biosimilar products. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on April 4, 2016.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on July 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0643 for “Labeling for Biosimilar Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra Benton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 6522, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-1042; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Labeling for Biosimilar Products.” The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act), enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-148) on March 23, 2010, created an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products demonstrated to be biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference product. Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application or supplement for a proposed interchangeable product. Under section 351(k) of the PHS Act, a proposed biological product that is demonstrated to be biosimilar to a reference product can rely on certain existing scientific knowledge about the safety, purity, and potency of the reference product to support licensure, and this is reflected in the approach to biosimilar product labeling.

    In this guidance, FDA outlines its recommendations for biosimilar product labeling. A demonstration of biosimilarity means, among other things, that FDA has determined that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the proposed product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Accordingly, biosimilar applicants should incorporate relevant data and information from the reference product labeling, with appropriate modifications as recommended in the guidance.

    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on April 4, 2016. Changes made to the guidance took into consideration the comments received, as well as requests regarding the requirements for and/or contents of biosimilar labeling made in the following citizen petitions: FDA-2015-P-2000 (submitted by AbbVie, Inc.), FDA-2015-P-4529 (submitted by a group of institutional investors including the United Auto Workers (UAW) Retiree Medical Benefits Trust), and FDA-2015-P-0776 (submitted by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Organization) (these citizen petitions are available at https://www.regulations.gov). Editorial changes were made primarily for clarification.

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19194), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance for industry “Labeling for Biosimilar Products.” FDA requested comment on whether FDA-approved patient labeling (e.g., Patient Information, Medication Guide, and Instructions for Use) should include a biosimilarity statement similar to the statement described in section IV.C.1 of the draft guidance. Several comments agreed with inclusion of the biosimilarity statement; one comment disagreed. FDA considered the comments received, but decided not to recommend inclusion of a biosimilarity statement in FDA-approved patient labeling at this time.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Labeling for Biosimilar Products.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information for the submission of a biologics license application under section 351(k) of the PHS Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0719; the collections of information in 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57 for the submission of labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0572; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 208 for Medication Guides have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0393; the collections of information in 21 CFR 312.47 for meetings with FDA have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 600 for the submission of adverse experience reporting for licensed biological products and general records have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0308; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 for the submission of labeling in a biologics license application or supplement to a biologics license application have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15391 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2326] Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers.” This draft guidance, when finalized, will provide the Agency's current thinking regarding the requirements for submission of field alert reports (FARs) by applicants of new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) and will outline FDA's recommendations for FAR submissions to help increase their consistency and relevancy. The draft guidance also addresses certain frequently asked questions about FARs.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 17, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2326 for “Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mamta Gautam-Basak, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 2508, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0712; Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911; or Rachel Harrington, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4339, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 410-779-5441.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Field Alert Report Submission: Questions and Answers.” The FAR regulations found in 21 CFR 314.81(b)(1) and 314.98(b) establish an early warning system to help protect patient health. Under these regulations, NDA and ANDA applicants must submit certain information to FDA about distributed drug products regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

    The draft guidance addresses the FAR submission requirements and focuses on topics such as the incidents and possible/actual quality issues that require submission of a FAR, the contents of the FAR, who submits the FAR, and when, where, and how they should submit it. The draft guidance also addresses followup and final FARs, which are not required under § 314.81(b), and recommends their submission to inform FDA of the status of root cause investigations and corrective actions taken, if any.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on field alert report submissions. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15389 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA International Research and Training Program Support Services (1158).

    Date: August 9, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-5817, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 13, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15358 Filed 7-18-18; 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 Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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; Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN) August 13, 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 Rockledge 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 13, 2018. Ronald J. Livingston, Jr., Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15357 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Planning Grant to Develop Phase III Clinical Trials for LBD.

    Date: August 6, 2018.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ana Olariu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-9223, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 13, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15359 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given for the meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council (CSAP NAC) on August 1, 2018.

    The Council was established to advise the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, SAMHSA; and Director, CSAP concerning matters relating to the activities carried out by and through the Center and the policies respecting such activities.

    The meeting will be open to the public and will include the discussion of the substance use prevention workforce and opioid use prevention. The meeting will also include updates on CSAP program developments.

    The meeting will be held in Rockville, Maryland. Attendance by the public will be limited to the space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before one week prior to the meeting. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations should notify the contact on or before one week prior to the meeting. Five minutes maximum will be allotted for each presentation.

    To attend onsite, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register at the SAMHSA Committees' website, http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with the CSAP Council's Designated Federal Officer (see contact information below).

    Substantive program information may be obtained after the meeting by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website, http://nac.samhsa.gov/, or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 1, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT: (OPEN)

    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5N54, Rockville, MD 20852, Adobe Connect webcast: https://samhsa-csap.adobeconnect.com/nac/.

    Contact: Matthew J. Aumen, Designated Federal Officer, SAMHSA CSAP NAC, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone: 240-276-2440, Fax: 301-480-8480, email: [email protected]

    Carlos Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15450 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4366-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4366-DR), dated May 11, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued June 14, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance for the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 11, 2018.

    Hawaii County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance).

    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. 2018-15388 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4373-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Oklahoma; 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 Oklahoma (FEMA-4373-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 State of Oklahoma resulting from wildfires during the period of April 11-20, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Traci L. Brasher, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Custer, Dewey, Harmon, Roger Mills, and Woodward Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Oklahoma 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. 2018-15371 Filed 7-18-18; 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-1838] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before October 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables 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.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1838, to 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]

    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:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed 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. These 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 built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. 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. Community Community map repository address Utah County, Utah and Incorporated Areas Project: 15-08-0730S Preliminary Date: March 31, 2014 and January 30, 2018 City of Alpine Public Works Building, 181 East 200 North, Alpine, UT 84004. City of American Fork City Hall, 51 East Main Street, American Fork, UT 84003. City of Cedar Hills City Hall, 10246 North Canyon Road, Cedar Hills, UT 84062. City of Draper City Hall, 1020 East Pioneer Road, Draper, UT 84020. City of Highland City Office, 5400 West Civic Center Drive, Suite 1, Highland, UT 84003. City of Lehi City Hall, 153 North 100 East, Lehi, UT 84043. City of Lindon City Center, 100 North State Street, Lindon, UT 84042. City of Mapleton City Office, 125 West Community Center Way, Mapleton, UT 84664. City of Orem City Center, 56 North State Street, Orem, UT 84057. City of Payson City Hall, 439 West Utah Avenue, Payson, UT 84651. City of Provo City Center, 351 West Center Street, Provo, UT 84601. City of Salem City Office, 30 West 100 South, Salem, UT, 84653. City of Saratoga Springs City Hall, 1307 North Commerce Drive, Suite 200, Saratoga Springs, UT 84045. City of Spanish Fork City Hall, 40 South Main Street, Spanish Fork, UT 84660. City of Springville City Hall, 110 South Main Street, Springville, UT 84663. City of Vineyard City Hall, 240 East Gammon Road, Vineyard, UT 84058. Town of Genola Town Office, 74 West 800 South, Genola, UT 84655. Unincorporated Areas of Utah County Community Development Department, 51 South University Avenue, Suite 117, Provo, UT 84601.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15384 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-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.
  • Connecticut: New Haven (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of New Haven (18-01-0359P). The Honorable Toni N. Harp, Mayor, City of New Haven, 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510. Planning Department, 165 Church Street, New Haven, CT 06510. June 22, 2018 090084 Florida: Broward (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Hollywood (17-04-3432P). The Honorable Josh Levy, Mayor, City of Hollywood, P.O. Box 229405, Hollywood, FL 33022. City Hall, 2600 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, FL 33020. June 20, 2018 125113 Collier (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Unincorporated areas of Collier County (18-04-0709P). The Honorable Penny Taylor, Chair, Collier County Board of Commissioners, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112. Collier County Administrative Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 1st Floor, Naples, FL 34112. June 14, 2018 120067 Lee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Sanibel, (17-04-7625P). The Honorable Kevin Ruane, Mayor, City of Sanibel, 800 Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL 33957. Planning Department, 800 Dunlop Road, Sanibel, FL 33957. June 25, 2018 120402 Lee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Town of Fort Myers Beach (18-04-0640P). 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 14, 2018 120673 Manatee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Bradenton (18-04-1119P). The Honorable Wayne H. Poston, Mayor, City of Bradenton, 101 Old Main Street West, Bradenton, FL 34205. City Hall, 101 Old Main Street West, Bradenton, FL 34205. June 15, 2018 120155 Manatee (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Unincorporated areas of Manatee County (18-04-1119P). The Honorable Betsy Benac, Chair, Manatee County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 1000, Bradenton, FL 34206. Manatee County Building and Development Services Department, 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205. June 15, 2018 120153 Miami-Dade (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Miami (17-04-7381P). The Honorable Francis Suarez, Mayor, City of Miami, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL 33133. Building Department, 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33133. June 20, 2018 120650 Monroe (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Monroe County (18-04-0838P). The Honorable David Rice, Mayor, Monroe County Board of Commissioners, 9400 Overseas Highway, Suite 210, Marathon, FL 33050. Monroe County Building Department, 9805 Overseas Highway, Suite 300, Marathon, FL 33050. June 15, 2018 125129 Pinellas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Clearwater (18-04-0912P). The Honorable George N. Cretekos, Mayor, City of Clearwater, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758. Engineering Department, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 220, Clearwater, FL 33758. June 25, 2018 125096 Sarasota (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Sarasota County (18-04-1102P). The Honorable Nancy 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. June 15, 2018 125144 Seminole (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Oviedo (17-04-2581P). The Honorable Dominic Persampiere, Mayor, City of Oviedo, 400 Alexandria Boulevard, Oviedo, FL 32765. Public Works Department, 1655 Evans Street, Oviedo, FL 32765. June 15, 2018 120293 Seminole (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Seminole County (17-04-2581P). The Honorable John Horan, Chairman, Seminole County Board of Commissioners, 1101 East 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771. Seminole County Development Review Division, 1101 East 1st Street, Sanford, FL 32771. June 15, 2018 120289 Maryland: Prince George's (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Prince George's County (17-03-2338P). The Honorable Rushern L. Baker, III, Prince George's County Executive, 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772. Prince George's County Department of Stormwater Management, 1801 McCormick Drive, Largo, MD 20774. June 20, 2018 245208 North Carolina: Wake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Raleigh (16-04-2597P). The Honorable Nancy McFarlane, Mayor, City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602. Stormwater Management Division, 1 Exchange Plaza, Suite 304, Raleigh, NC 27601. June 27, 2018 370243 Wake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Raleigh (16-04-2710P). The Honorable Nancy McFarlane, Mayor, City of Raleigh, P.O. Box 590, Raleigh, NC 27602. Stormwater Management Division, 1 Exchange Plaza, Suite 304, Raleigh, NC 27601. June 27, 2018 370243 Wake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Town of Knightdale (16-04-2597P). The Honorable James Roberson, Mayor, Town of Knightdale, 950 Steeple Square Court, Knightdale, NC 27545. Town Hall, 950 Steeple Square Court, Knightdale, NC 27545. June 27, 2018 370241 Oklahoma: Grady (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Chickasha (17-06-2589P). Mr. John Noblitt, Manager, City of Chickasha,117 North 4th Street, Chickasha, OK 73018. City Hall, 117 North 4th Street, Chickasha, OK 73018. June 11, 2018 400234 Pennsylvania: Bedford (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Borough of Hyndman (17-03-2585P). The Honorable Newton Huffman, Mayor, Borough of Hyndman, P.O. Box 74, Hyndman, PA 15545. Borough Hall, 3945 Center Street, Hyndman, PA 15545. June 25, 2018 420121 Bedford (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Township of Londonderry (17-03-2585P). The Honorable Stephen Stouffer, Chairman, Township of Londonderry Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 215, Hyndman, PA 15545. Township Hall, 4303 Hyndman Road, Hyndman, PA 15545. June 25, 2018 421345 Lancaster (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Township of Manheim (17-03-1486P). Mr. Sean P. Molchany, Manager-Secretary, Township of Manheim, 1840 Municipal Drive, Lancaster, PA 17601. Township Hall, 1840 Municipal Drive, Lancaster, PA 17601. June 15, 2018 420556 Lancaster (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Township of Warwick (18-03-0392P). Mr. Daniel L. Zimmerman, Manager, Township of Warwick, P.O. Box 308, Lititz, PA 17543. Township Hall, 315 Clay Road, Lititz, PA 17543. June 15, 2018 421786 Lycoming (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Township of Loyalsock (18-03-0265P). Mr. William Burdett, Manager, Township of Loyalsock, 2501 East 3rd Street, Williamsport, PA 17701. Township Hall, 2501 East 3rd Street, Williamsport, PA 17701. June 19, 2018 421040 Somerset (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Borough of Rockwood (18-03-0266P). The Honorable Melissa Cramer, Mayor, Borough of Rockwood, 669 Somerset Avenue, Rockwood, PA 15557. Borough Hall, 669 Somerset Avenue, Rockwood, PA 15557. June 20, 2018 422045 South Carolina: Berkley (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Unincorporated areas of Berkley County (17-04-5508P). The Honorable William W. Peagler, III, Berkley County Supervisor, P.O. Box 6122, Moncks Corner, SC 29461. Berkeley County Planning and Zoning Department, 1003 Highway 52, Moncks Corner, SC 29461. June 14, 2018 450029 Charleston (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Folly Beach (17-04-4686P). The Honorable Timothy M. Goodwin, Mayor, City of Folly Beach, P.O. Box 48, Folly Beach, SC 29439. Building Department, 21 Center Street, Folly Beach, SC 29439. June 20, 2018 455415 South Dakota: Lawrence (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Spearfish (18-08-0192P). The Honorable Dana Boke, Mayor, City of Spearfish, 625 North 5th Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. City Hall, 625 North 5th Street, Spearfish, SD 57783. June 13, 2018 460046 Texas: Bexar (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of San Antonio (17-06-0568P). 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 25, 2018 480045 Collin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Town of Plano (17-06-3654P). The Honorable Harry LaRosiliere, Mayor, City of Plano, 1520 K Avenue, Plano, TX 75074. Engineering Department, 1520 K Avenue, Plano, TX 75074. June 15, 2018 480140 Collin (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Town of Prosper (18-06-0355P). The Honorable Ray Smith, Mayor, Town of Prosper, P.O. Box 307, Prosper, TX 75078. Engineering Services Department, 409 East 1st Street, Prosper, TX 75078. June 14, 2018 480141 El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of El Paso (18-06-0747P). Mr. Tommy Gonzales, Manager, City of El Paso, 300 North Campbell Street, El Paso, TX 79901. City Hall, 801 Texas Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901. June 18, 2018 480214 El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of El Paso (18-06-0885P). Mr. Tommy Gonzales, Manager, City of El Paso, 300 North Campbell Street, El Paso, TX 79901. City Hall, 801 Texas Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901. June 12, 2018 480214 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Rosenberg (17-06-3041P). The Honorable William T. “Bill” Benton, Mayor, City of Rosenberg, P.O. Box 32, Rosenberg, TX 77471. City Hall, 2110 4th Street, Rosenberg, TX 77471. June 12, 2018 480232 Fort Bend (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Unincorporated areas of Fort Bend County (17-06-3041P). The Honorable Robert Hebert, Fort Bend County Judge, 401 Jackson Street, Richmond, TX 77469. Fort Bend County Engineering Department, 301 Jackson Street, Richmond, TX 77469. June 12, 2018 480228 Harris (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Harris County (17-06-1728P). The Honorable Edward M. Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002. Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77002. June 11, 2018 480287 Harris (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Harris County (17-06-3887P). The Honorable Edward M. Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002. Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77002. June 11, 2018 480287 Harris (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Harris County (18-06-0276P). The Honorable Edward M. Emmett, Harris County Judge, 1001 Preston Street, Suite 911, Houston, TX 77002. Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77002. June 18, 2018 480287 Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). City of Fort Worth (17-06-4262P). 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. June 25, 2018 480596 Travis (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Pflugerville (17-06-3914P). The Honorable Victor Gonzales, Mayor, City of Pflugerville, P.O. Box 589, Pflugerville, TX 78691. Development Services Department, 201-B East Pecan Street, Pflugerville, TX 78691. June 18, 2018 481028 Utah: Box Elder (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). City of Perry City (17-08-1022P). The Honorable Kevin Jeppsen, Mayor, City of Perry City, 3005 South 1200 West,Perry City, UT 84302. City Hall, 3005 South 1200 West, Perry City, UT 84302. June 14, 2018 490010 Virginia: Fairfax (FEMA Docket No.: B-1821). Unincorporated areas of Fairfax County (17-03-2338P). Mr. Bryan Hill, Fairfax County Executive, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Fairfax, VA 22035. Fairfax County Government Center, 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 449, Fairfax, VA 22035. June 20, 2018 515525 Wyoming: Teton (FEMA Docket No.: B-1816). Unincorporated areas of Teton County (17-08-0693P). The Honorable Mark Newcomb, Chairman, Teton County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 3594, Jackson, WY 83001. Teton County Engineering Department, 320 South King Street, Jackson, WY 83001. June 14, 2018 560094
    [FR Doc. 2018-15386 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4374-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Maryland; 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 Maryland (FEMA-4374-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 State of Maryland resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of May 15-19, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Maryland.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Emily Breslin, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Maryland have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Frederick and Washington Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Maryland 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. 2018-15397 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4365-DR: Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4365-DR), dated May 8, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued June 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Hawaii is hereby amended to include Individual Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 8, 2018.

    The City and County of Honolulu and Kaua'i County for Individual Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

    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. 2018-15396 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-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.
  • California: Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Corona (17-09-2752P) The Honorable Karen Spiegel, Mayor, City of Corona, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 City Hall, 400 South Vicentia Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 Jun. 14, 2018 060250 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of Riverside County (17-09-2752P) The Honorable Chuck Washington, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, Riverside County, 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside County, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1995 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501 Jun. 14, 2018 060245 Florida: Duval (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) City of Jacksonville (17-04-6334P) The Honorable Lenny Curry, Mayor, City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400, Jacksonville, FL 32202 City Hall, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202 May 10, 2018 120077 Hawaii: Honolulu (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City and County of Honolulu (18-09-0118P) The Honorable Kirk Caldwell, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu, 530 South King Street Room 306, Honolulu, HI 96813 Department of Planning and Permitting, 650 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 May 29, 2018 150001 Idaho: Ada (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Kuna (17-10-1636P) The Honorable Joe Stear, Mayor, City of Kuna, P.O. Box 13, Kuna, ID 83634 City Hall, 329 West 3rd Street, Kuna, ID 83634 Jun. 7, 2018 160174 Ada (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of Ada County (17-10-1636P) The Honorable David L. Case, Chairman, Ada County Board of Commissioners, 200 West Front Street, 3rd Floor, Boise, ID 83702 Ada County Courthouse, 200 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 Jun. 7, 2018 160001 Ada (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of Ada County (18-10-0284X) The Honorable David L. Case, Chairman, Ada County Board of Commissioners, 200 West Front Street, 3rd Floor, Boise, ID 83702 Ada County Courthouse, 200 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 Jun. 8, 2018 160001 Illinois: Cook (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) Unincorporated Areas of Cook County (16-05-7359P) The Honorable Toni Preckwinkle The Honorable Toni Preckwinkle, President, Cook County Board, 118 North Clark Street, Room 537, Chicago, IL 60602 Cook County Building and Zoning Department, 69 West Washington Street, 21st Floor, Chicago, IL 60602 May 18, 2018 170054 Cook (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) Village of Alsip (16-05-7359P) The Honorable John D. Ryan, Mayor, Village of Alsip, 4500 West 123rd Street, Alsip, IL 60803 Village Office, 4500 West 123rd Street, Alsip, IL 60803 May 18, 2018 170055 Cook (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) Village of Crestwood (16-05-7359P) The Honorable Louis Presta, Mayor, Village of Crestwood, 13840 South Cicero Avenue, Crestwood, IL 60418 Village Hall, 13840 South Cicero Avenue, Crestwood, IL 60418 May 18, 2018 170080 McHenry (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of McHenry County (18-05-2003P) The Honorable Jack D. Franks, Chairman, McHenry County Board, County Government Center, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098 County Government Center, 2200 North Seminary Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098 June 14, 2018 170732 McHenry (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Village of Port Barrington (18-05-2003P) The Honorable Shannon Yeaton, Village President, Village of Port Barrington, 69 South Circle Avenue, Port Barrington, IL 60010 Village Hall, 69 South Circle Avenue, Port Barrington, IL 60010 June 14, 2018 170478 Indiana: Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) City of Hammond (17-05-6621P) The Honorable Thomas M. McDermott, Jr. Mayor, City of Hammond, Hammond City Hall, 5925 Calumet Avenue, Hammond, IN 46320 City Hall, 5925 Calumet Avenue, Hammond, IN 46320 May 4, 2018 180134 Iowa: Bremer (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Waverly (18-07-0164P) The Honorable Charles D. Infelt, Mayor, City of Waverly, 200 1st Street Northeast, Waverly, IA 50677 City Hall, 200 1st Street Northeast, Waverly, IA 50677 Jun. 1, 2018 190030 Kansas: Johnson (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Olathe (17-07-2080P) The Honorable Michael Copeland, Mayor, City of Olathe, P.O. Box 768, Olathe, KS 66051 City Hall, Olathe Planning Office, 100 West Santa Fe Drive, Olathe, KS 66061 Jun. 1, 2018 200173 Minnesota: Anoka (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Lino Lakes (17-05-5610P) The Honorable Jeff Reinert, Mayor, City of Lino Lakes, 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 City Hall, 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 May 30, 2018 270015 Missouri: Christian (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Nixa (17-07-1573P) The Honorable Brian E. Steele, Mayor, City of Nixa, 715 West Mount Vernon Street, Nixa, MO 65714 City Hall, 715 West Mount Vernon Street, Nixa, MO 65714 May 10, 2018 290078 Clay (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) City of Gladstone (17-07-1263P) The Honorable R.D. Mallams, Mayor, City of Gladstone, City Hall, 7010 North Holmes Street, Gladstone, MO 64118 City Hall, 7010 North Holmes Street, Gladstone, MO 64118 May 11, 2018 290091 Nevada: Douglas (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County (17-09-2481P) The Honorable Barry Penzel, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Douglas County, P.O. Box 218, Minden, NV 89423 Douglas County, Community Development, 1594 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden, NV 89423 Jun. 7, 2018 320008 Oregon: Marion (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) City of Salem (17-10-1422P) The Honorable Chuck M. Bennett, Mayor, City of Salem, City Hall, 555 Liberty Street Southeast, Room 220, Salem, OR 97301 Public Works Department, 555 Liberty Street Southeast, Room 325, Salem, OR 97301 May 29, 2018 410167 Marion (FEMA Docket No.: B-1812) Unincorporated Areas of Marion County (17-10-1422P) Mr. Sam Brentano, Commissioner, Marion County, 555 Court Street Northeast, Suite 5232, Salem, OR 97309 Marion County, Department of Planning, 315 Lancaster Drive Northeast, Salem, OR 97305 May 29, 2018 410154 Puerto Rico:, Puerto Rico (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (17-02-1123P) The Honorable Luis García Pelatti, President, Planning Board, Minillas Government Center, P.O. Box 41119, San Juan, PR 00940 Puerto Rico Planning Board, Minillas Government Center, North Building, East Diego Avenue, Stop 22, San Juan, PR 00940 May 10, 2018 720000 Texas: Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) City of Euless (17-06-4048P) The Honorable Linda Martin, Mayor, City of Euless, 201 North Ector Drive, Euless, TX 76039 City Hall, 201 North Ector Drive, Euless, TX 76039 May 18, 2018 480593 Washington: King (FEMA Docket No.: B-1809) City of Issaquah (17-10-0929P) The Honorable Fred Butler, Mayor, City of Issaquah, P.O. Box 1307, Issaquah, WA 98027 Department of Public Works, City Hall, 1775 12th Avenue Northwest, Issaquah, WA 98027 May 11, 2018 530079
    [FR Doc. 2018-15385 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1841] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. 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). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before October 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables 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.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1841, to 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]

    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:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed 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. These 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 built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. 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. Community Community map repository address Hill County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1543S Preliminary Date: February 15, 2018 City of Abbott City Hall, 208 East Walnut Street, Abbott, TX 76621. City of Covington City Hall, 402 Gathings Avenue, Covington, TX 76636. City of Hillsboro Community Development Department, 214 East Elm Street, Hillsboro, TX 76645. City of Itasca City Hall, 134 North Hill Street, Itasca, TX 76055. Unincorporated Areas of Hill County Hill County Courthouse, John W. Erwin Annex, 200 East Franklin Street, Suite 9, Hillsboro, TX 76645. McLennan County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Project: 14-06-1543S Preliminary Date: February 15, 2018 City of Bellmead City Hall, 3015 Bellmead Drive, Bellmead, TX 76705. City of Hallsburg City Hall, 1115 Wilbanks Drive, Hallsburg, TX 76705. City of Hewitt Planning and Community Development, 103 North Hewitt Drive, Suite E, Hewitt, TX 76643. City of Lacy-Lakeview City Hall, 501 East Craven Avenue, Lacy-Lakeview, TX 76705. City of Leroy City Hall, 10 East Commerce Street, Leroy, TX 76654. City of Riesel City Hall, 104 North Highway 6, Riesel, TX 76682. City of Robinson City Hall, 111 West Lyndale Drive, Robinson, TX 76706. City of Ross Ross City Hall, 1557 Ross Road, Elm Mott, TX 76640. City of Waco Dr. Mae Jackson Development Center, 401 Franklin Avenue, Waco, TX 76701. City of West City Hall, 110 North Reagan Street, West, TX 76691. Unincorporated Areas of McLennan County McLennan County Records Building, 215 North 5th Street, Room 130, Waco, TX 76701.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15387 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-R-2017-N183; FXRS85110900000-XXX-FF09R40000] Draft Long-Range Transportation Plans for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Regions 2, 6, and 8 AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of three draft long-range transportation plans for public review and comment. These draft long-range transportation plans outline strategies for improving and maintaining transportation assets that provide access to Service-managed lands in Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas), Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and Region 8 (California and Nevada) over the next 20 years.

    DATES:

    We must receive written comments on or before August 20, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document Review: If you wish to review these draft plans, you may obtain copies by visiting the following websites:

    Region 2: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/87706 Region 6: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/87709 Region 8: https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/87710

    Alternatively, you may contact Laura Whorton, Acting Transportation Branch Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Bailey's Crossroads, VA 22041 (phone: 703-358-1752).

    Submitting Comments: If you wish to comment on any or all of the plans, you may submit your comments in writing by any one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Acting Transportation Branch Chief, at the above address.

    Hand-delivery: Acting Transportation Branch Chief Analyst, at the above address.

    Fax: 703-358-1752.

    Email: [email protected].

    For additional information about submitting comments, see the Public Availability of Comments section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Whorton, at the above address, phone number, or email.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    With this notice, we make the draft long-range transportation plans (LRTPs) for Regions 2, 6, and 8 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service available for public review and comment. When finalized, the LRTPs will apply to Service-managed lands in Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas), Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and Region 8 (California and Nevada).

    Background

    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) requires that all Federal land management agencies conduct long-range transportation planning in a manner that is consistent with metropolitan planning organizations and State departments of transportation planning. We initiated these LRTPs to bring the Service into compliance with the FAST Act and to achieve the following goals:

    • Establish a defensible structure for sound transportation planning and decision-making;

    • Establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in each of these three Service Regions;

    • Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to improve the Service's transportation infrastructure;

    • Integrate transportation planning and funding for national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries into existin