Federal Register Vol. 83, No.141,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 141 (July 23, 2018)

Page Range34753-34932
FR Document

83_FR_141
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 34931 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal OrganizationsPDF
83 FR 34878 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLCPDF
83 FR 34877 - Decision and Order: Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S.PDF
83 FR 34763 - Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OKPDF
83 FR 34851 - Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 34847 - Notice of Issuance of Staff Implementation Guidance 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as AmendedPDF
83 FR 34907 - In the Matter of the Amendment of the Designation of al-Shabaab (and Other Aliases) as a Specially Designated Global TerroristPDF
83 FR 34910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Fractional Aircraft Ownership ProgramsPDF
83 FR 34856 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Passenger List/Crew ListPDF
83 FR 34855 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Screening Requirements for CarriersPDF
83 FR 34832 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
83 FR 34881 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA)PDF
83 FR 34875 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: VHG Labs DBA LGC StandardsPDF
83 FR 34843 - Certain New Chemical Substances; Receipt and Status Information for April 2018PDF
83 FR 34874 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLCPDF
83 FR 34908 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “Rachel Whiteread” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 34909 - Notice of Determinations: Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition-Determinations: “The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 34819 - Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of a Certain Chemical SubstancePDF
83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances Applications: Shertech Laboratories, LLCPDF
83 FR 34889 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO)PDF
83 FR 34770 - Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NYPDF
83 FR 34858 - American Samoa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 34858 - Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
83 FR 34873 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China; Scheduling of Full Five-Year ReviewsPDF
83 FR 34912 - Extension of Comment Period on a Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 34849 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
83 FR 34837 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 34840 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 34838 - Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
83 FR 34843 - Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Tridam Energy LLC; Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLCPDF
83 FR 34841 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-576); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 34842 - Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Reliability Technical ConferencePDF
83 FR 34841 - Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-DecisionalPDF
83 FR 34840 - Notice of Compliance Filing: Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34836 - Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gateway Expansion Project, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLCPDF
83 FR 34823 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34871 - Institution of Investigation: Certain Powered Cover PlatesPDF
83 FR 34912 - Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 34825 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64-Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bacardi USA, Inc. (Kitting of Alcoholic Beverages); Jacksonville, FloridaPDF
83 FR 34828 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
83 FR 34830 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (U.S.-Colombia TPA)PDF
83 FR 34825 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 176-Rockford, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Leading Americas Inc. (Wire Harnesses); Hampshire, IllinoisPDF
83 FR 34827 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
83 FR 34859 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of SupportPDF
83 FR 34824 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34881 - Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety GrantsPDF
83 FR 34890 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance CriteriaPDF
83 FR 34851 - Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of Disapproval Minnesota Medicaid State Plan Amendment (SPA) 12-0014-BPDF
83 FR 34802 - Rights-of-Way on Indian Land; Bond ExemptionPDF
83 FR 34863 - Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian AffairsPDF
83 FR 34857 - Maryland; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34855 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34857 - Nebraska; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
83 FR 34826 - Notice of Partially Closed Meeting: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 34835 - Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 34804 - Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NYPDF
83 FR 34768 - Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MIPDF
83 FR 34766 - Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MIPDF
83 FR 34868 - Public Input Requested on Potential Impacts to Historic Priorities: Sand Resource Assessment and Borrow Area Identification, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental ShelfPDF
83 FR 34758 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc.PDF
83 FR 34880 - Importer of Controlled Substances RegistrationPDF
83 FR 34879 - Importer of Controlled Substances RegistrationPDF
83 FR 34880 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Johnson Matthey Inc.PDF
83 FR 34831 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34764 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 34764 - Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 34861 - Green Diamond Resource Company Proposed Forest Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, CAPDF
83 FR 34800 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
83 FR 34761 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 34827 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 34907 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Armenia!” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 34907 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Judson Dance Theater: The Work is Never Done” ExhibitionPDF
83 FR 34794 - Calling Number Identification Service-Caller IDPDF
83 FR 34848 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
83 FR 34793 - Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking To Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access ServicesPDF
83 FR 34907 - Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter FY 2018PDF
83 FR 34755 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
83 FR 34824 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 34899 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Extend the Applicability of the Floor Broker Management System and the Snapshot Functionality to Registered Options Traders and SpecialistsPDF
83 FR 34901 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify and Enhance Rules Related to the CNS Reorganization Processing System and NSCC's Authority To Reveal the Identity of Counterparties in Certain CircumstancesPDF
83 FR 34896 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules Relating to Market Maker QuotationsPDF
83 FR 34891 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes Related to the ICE Clear Europe Recovery and Wind-Down PlansPDF
83 FR 34928 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VA Disaster Resilience Survey of Community Dwelling VeteransPDF
83 FR 34927 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Evaluation of Patient and Provider Satisfaction With Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists in Outpatient Mental Health Clinics at the Madison VAPDF
83 FR 34925 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VA Health Professional Scholarship and Visual Impairment and Orientation and Mobility Professional Scholarship ProgramsPDF
83 FR 34926 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: VSO Access to VHA Electronic Health RecordsPDF
83 FR 34927 - Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Grants to States for Construction & Acquisition of State Home FacilitiesPDF
83 FR 34870 - Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing; Extension of Target DatePDF
83 FR 34831 - Permits; Foreign FishingPDF
83 FR 34825 - Order Terminating Denial Order Issued on April 15, 2018, Against Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd.PDF
83 FR 34911 - Notice of Proposal To Discontinue Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service (HIWAS)PDF
83 FR 34910 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Flight Engineers and Flight NavigatorsPDF
83 FR 34860 - Notice of HUD-Held Multifamily and Healthcare Loan Sale (MHLS 2018-2)PDF
83 FR 34850 - 2018 Revision-Government Auditing StandardsPDF
83 FR 34908 - International Telecommunication Advisory Committee; Solicitation of MembershipPDF
83 FR 34813 - Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQSPDF
83 FR 34909 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor ApplicationPDF
83 FR 34854 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34913 - Funding Opportunities: Bank Enterprise Award Program; 2018 Funding RoundPDF
83 FR 34807 - New Mailing Standards for Merchandise Return ServicePDF
83 FR 34850 - Submission for OMB Review; Progress Payments (SF-1443)PDF
83 FR 34874 - Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Amending the Complaint and Notice of Enforcement Proceeding To Reflect a Corporate Name ChangePDF
83 FR 34849 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
83 FR 34834 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fee Deficiency SubmissionsPDF
83 FR 34833 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Third-Party Submissions and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 34854 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34765 - Recurring Special Local Regulation; EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta, Pittsburgh, PAPDF
83 FR 34765 - Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, Atlantic City, NJPDF
83 FR 34853 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 34853 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 34806 - POSTNET BarcodePDF
83 FR 34753 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 34795 - Security Threat Disqualification UpdatePDF
83 FR 34780 - Amendments to Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service ArrangementsPDF
83 FR 34811 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Incorporation by Reference UpdatesPDF
83 FR 34816 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Monitoring Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2PDF
83 FR 34775 - Flonicamid; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
83 FR 34820 - Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 To Encourage Vendor FeedbackPDF

Issue

83 141 Monday, July 23, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34823 2018-15696 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Reconsideration of Disapproval Minnesota Medicaid State Plan Amendment 12-0014-B; Hearing, 34851 2018-15681 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 34824 2018-15648 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones: Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY, 34770-34775 2018-15711 Safety Zones: Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, 34766-34767 2018-15670 Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI, 34768-34770 2018-15671 Special Local Regulations: Atlantic Ocean, Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, Atlantic City, NJ, 34765 2018-15608 EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta, Pittsburgh, PA, 34765-34766 2018-15609 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY, 34804-34806 2018-15672 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34824 2018-15686
Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Bank Enterprise Award Program; 2018 Funding Round, 34913-34925 2018-15618 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics; Correction, 34764-34765 2018-15661 Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates; Correction, 34764 2018-15662 Defense Department Defense Department PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor Feedback, 34820-34822 2018-15355 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Progress Payments, 34850 2018-15616 Meetings: Defense Science Board, 34835-34836 2018-15674 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S., 34877-34878 2018-15743 Importer of Controlled Substances Applications: Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 34874-34875 2018-15719 Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 34878-34879 2018-15750 Shertech Laboratories, LLC, 34879 2018-15713 VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards, 34875-34876 2018-15721 Importer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc., 34879 2018-15667 Importer of Controlled Substances; Registrations, 34880 2018-15666 Importer of Controlled Substances; Registrations: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 34879-34880 2018-15665 Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Johnson Matthey Inc., 34880-34881 2018-15664 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Flonicamid, 34775-34780 2018-15449 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Infrastructure Monitoring Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah, 34816-34819 2018-15480 Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, 34813-34816 2018-15625 Wyoming; Incorporation by Reference Updates, 34811-34813 2018-15481 Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of a Certain Chemical Substance, 34819-34820 2018-15714 NOTICES Certain New Chemical Substances: Receipt and Status Information for April 2018, 34843-34847 2018-15720 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Guidance: Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as amended, 34847-34848 2018-15733 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 34761-34763 2018-15658 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 34755-34761 2018-15649 2018-15668 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 34753-34755 2018-15535 Establishment of Restricted Areas: R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK, 34763-34764 2018-15737 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 34800-34802 2018-15659 Security Threat Disqualification Update, 34795-34800 2018-15534 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Flight Engineers and Flight Navigators, 34910 2018-15631 Fractional Aircraft Ownership Programs, 34910-34911 2018-15728 Proposal to Discontinue Hazardous Inflight Weather Advisory Service, 34911-34912 2018-15632 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers: ATandT Corporation Petition for Rulemaking to Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services, 34793-34794 2018-15652 Calling Number Identification Service--Caller ID, 34794 2018-15654 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34848-34849 2018-15653 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Maryland, 34857-34858 2018-15678 Nebraska, 34857 2018-15676 Major Disaster Declarations: American Samoa; Amendment No. 1, 34858-34859 2018-15710 Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 3, 34858 2018-15709 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34841-34842 2018-15701 Combined Filings, 34840, 34837 2018-15704 2018-15705 Designations of Commission Staff As Non-Decisional: Calpine Corp., Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, et al. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 34841 2018-15699 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project, 34838-34839 2018-15703 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, Gateway Expansion Project, 34836-34837 2018-15697 Exemptions; Transfers: Tridam Energy LLC; Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC, 34843 2018-15702 Filings: Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc., 34840-34841 2018-15698 Meetings: Reliability Technical Conference, 34842-34843 2018-15700 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission RULES Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements, 34780-34793 2018-15496 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 34849-34850 2018-15613 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 34849 2018-15614 2018-15706 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Green Diamond Resource Company Proposed Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, CA, 34861-34863 2018-15660 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Product-Specific Guidances, 34851-34853 2018-15735 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Bacardi USA, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 64; Jacksonville, FL, 34825 2018-15693 Leading Americas Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 176; Rockford, IL, 34825 2018-15690 General Services General Services Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor Feedback, 34820-34822 2018-15355 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Progress Payments, 34850 2018-15616 Government Accountability Government Accountability Office NOTICES Government Auditing Standards—2018 Revision, 34850-34851 2018-15629 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department 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

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES HUD-Held Multifamily and Healthcare Loan Sale, 34860-34861 2018-15630 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Rights-of-Way on Indian Land; Bond Exemption, 34802-34804 2018-15680 NOTICES Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 34863-34868 2018-15679 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denial Orders; Terminations: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corp. and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd., 34825-34826 2018-15633 Meetings: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 34826 2018-15675 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34827 2018-15657 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interim Procedures for Considering Requests under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, 34830-34831 2018-15691 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 34828-34830 2018-15692 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 34827-34828 2018-15689 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 34874 2018-15615 Certain Powered Cover Plates, 34871-34872 2018-15695 Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same, 34870-34871 2018-15635 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China, 34873-34874 2018-15708 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies, 34881 2018-15723
Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Veterans Employment and Training Service

Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunity: Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants, 34881-34889 2018-15685 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 to Encourage Vendor Feedback, 34820-34822 2018-15355 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Progress Payments, 34850 2018-15616 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34912-34913 2018-15694 2018-15707 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 34853-34854 2018-15605 2018-15606 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 34854-34855 2018-15619 2018-15620 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 34854 2018-15610 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Applications: Exempted Fishing Permits, 34832-34833 2018-15724 Meetings: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 34831-34832 2018-15663 Permits: Foreign Fishing, 34831 2018-15634 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 34890-34891 2018-15683 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Potential Impacts to Historic Priorities: Sand Resource Assessment and Borrow Area Identification, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf; Request for Public Input, 34868-34870 2018-15669 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fee Deficiency Submissions, 34834-34835 2018-15612 Third-Party Submissions and Protests, 34833-34834 2018-15611 Postal Service Postal Service PROPOSED RULES New Mailing Standards for Merchandise Return Service, 34807-34811 2018-15617 POSTNET Barcode, 34806-34807 2018-15549 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Transnational Criminal Organizations; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of July 20, 2018), 34929-34932 2018-15904 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 34891-34896 2018-15644 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 34899-34901 2018-15647 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 34896-34899 2018-15645 National Securities Clearing Corp., 34901-34907 2018-15646 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter FY 2018, 34907 2018-15650 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application, 34909 2018-15624 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Armenia! Exhibition, 34907-34908 2018-15656 Judson Dance Theater: The Work is Never Done Exhibition, 34907 2018-15655 Rachel Whiteread, 34908 2018-15717 The Progressive Revolution: Modern Art for a New India, 34909 2018-15716 Designations as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist: al-Shabaab (and other aliases), 34907 2018-15729 Requests for Membership: International Telecommunication Advisory Committee, 34908 2018-15626 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 34855 2018-15677 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affidavit of Support, 34859-34860 2018-15688 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Passenger List/Crew List, 34856-34857 2018-15726 Screening Requirements for Carriers, 34855-34856 2018-15725 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Grants to States for Construction and Acquisition of State Home Facilities, 34927-34928 2018-15636 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disaster Resilience Survey of Community Dwelling Veterans, 34928 2018-15640 Evaluation of Patient and Provider Satisfaction with Mental Health-Clinical Pharmacy Specialists in Outpatient Mental Health Clinics at the Madison VA, 34927 2018-15639 Health Professional Scholarship and Visual Impairment and Orientation and Mobility Professional Scholarship Programs, 34925-34926 2018-15638 VSO Access to VHA Electronic Health Records, 34926-34927 2018-15637 Veterans Employment Veterans Employment and Training Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach, 34889-34890 2018-15712 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 34929-34932 2018-15904 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.

83 141 Monday, July 23, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0114; Product Identifier 2017-NM-167-AD; Amendment 39-19335; AD 2018-15-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. This AD was prompted by a report of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). This AD requires an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal, and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 27, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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-2018-0114.

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-2018-0114; 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 Docket Operations, 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:

Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA; phone: 206-231-3553; email: [email protected].

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 The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2018 (83 FR 8017). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failures of the IFS forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the TR. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal, and applicable on-condition actions.

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing supported the intent of the NPRM.

Request To Include Additional Action

An anonymous commenter requested that an additional action be included in the proposed AD. The commenter proposed that Boeing develop an inspection of the thermal blankets and fire seals to ensure the integrity and safe operation of these components. The commenter expressed concern that a thermal blanket could fail due to insufficient sealing by the fire seals that have incorporated the modification mandated by this AD. The modification of the fire seals is specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017 (“BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001”).

The commenter stated that the post-modification fire seals are still failing. The commenter is aware of 30 findings of fire seal/thermal blanket damage across a fleet size of 16 airplanes. The commenter noted that there were 18 findings prior to incorporation of the modification of the fire seals specified in BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, and 12 findings after incorporation of that modification. The commenter is concerned that the unsafe condition addressed by this AD could still exist after accomplishment of the mandatory modification.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. We do not want to delay the publication of this AD by adding a new inspection requirement that will require additional time for public comment. We have determined that the modification of the fire seals required by this AD addresses the design issue of the fire seal end cap that resulted in failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal and damage to the thermal blanket. We are aware of operator reports that damage to the IFS forward upper fire seal and thermal blanket has been discovered on airplanes on which the modification specified in BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, has been done. The airplane manufacturer is investigating the root cause of this damage and, when the root cause is identified, we may consider further rulemaking at that time. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for 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.

Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal and applicable on-condition actions. 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 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $0 $680 $8,840

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that will be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 (fire seal replacement, 4 per airplane) $4,532 $5,212
    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 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): 2018-15-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19335; Docket No. FAA-2018-0114; Product Identifier 2017-NM-167-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 27, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust System.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the inner fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser (TR). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    For Model 787-8 and 787-9 series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017 (“BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001”): Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001.

    (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    For Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines, as of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a thrust reverser with an IFS forward upper fire seal having part number (P/N) 725Z3171-127 or P/N 725Z3171-128.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled 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 RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3553; email: [email protected].

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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 July 13, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15535 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1237; Product Identifier 2017-NE-43-AD; Amendment 39-19333; AD 2018-15-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 engine models. This AD requires certain engines susceptible to intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blade failure not be installed on an airplane together with other engines with IPT blades of the same age. This AD was prompted by new operating restrictions for engines with IPT blades susceptible to shank corrosion and possible blade separation. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 7, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1237.

    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-2017-1237; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0086, dated April 17, 2018 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where, following N2 vibration and multiple messages, the flight crew performed an engine in-flight shut-down (IFSD) and returned to the departure airport, landing uneventfully. The post-flight borescope inspection of the engine revealed an intermediate pressure turbine blade (IPTB) missing at the shank. Analysis shows that this kind of failure is due to sulphidation corrosion cracking.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to IPTB shank release, possibly resulting in an IFSD and consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, RR issued Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ575 to provide instructions for engine removal from service when any IPTB with a high level of sulphidation exposure is identified by corrosion fatigue life (CFL) model. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0056 to require removal from service of certain engines, to be corrected in shop.

    Since that AD was issued, prompted by further occurrences and analyses, it has been decided that, to reduce the risk of dual IFSD, a new cyclic life limit must be applied to certain engines, which determines when an engine can no longer be installed on an aeroplane in combination with certain other engines. RR published the original issue of the NMSB to provide de-pairing instructions, including the relevant IPTB cyclic limit for each engine. Consequently, EASA issued Emergency AD 2017-0253-E to require de-pairing of the affected engines.

    Since that AD was issued, RR issued Revision 2 of the NMSB, which removes and adds certain ESN from the list of affected engines and introduces another IPTB cyclic limit.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2017-0253-E, which is superseded, amends the Applicability, and requires application of the new limit.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1237.

    Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, and Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018; and RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016. Alert NMSB Trent 1000-72-AJ992 defines operating restrictions for de-pairing certain engines before an IPT blade cyclic life. Revisions 1 and 2 of this NMSB differ by identifying different engine serial numbers that are affected by the respective NMSBs. RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818 introduces a new IPT blade less susceptible to shank corrosion and exempt from this AD. 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 RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018; and initial issue, dated September 21, 2016; and RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 2, dated February 28, 2018; Revision 1, dated January 10, 2017; and initial issue, dated December 22, 2016. RR NMSBs Trent 1000 72-J442 and Trent 1000 72-J465 describe procedures for refurbishing an engine with either serviceable used or new IPT blades, and also the cleaning and inspection requirements for the reuse of IPT blades.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires removal of one engine from an airplane before both engines exceed their respective IPT blade operating restrictions.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators are affected by this regulatory action. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unneccessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2017-1237” and Product Identifier “2017-NE-43-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Time-Staggering of selected Trent 1000 engines on B787 48 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,080 $0 $4,080 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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): 2018-15-01 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-19333; Docket No. FAA-2017-1237; Product Identifier 2017-NE-43-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 7, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, Trent 1000-H, Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 engine models with engine serial numbers identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, except those that have incorporated RR Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 7250, Turbine Engine, Turbine Section.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by operating restrictions that have been defined for certain engines with intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) blades susceptible to shank corrosion and possible blade separation. These restrictions define when an engine can no longer be installed on an airplane together with other engines susceptible to the same failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent the simultaneous failure of both engines. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a dual engine in-flight shutdown and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    After the effective date of this AD, for any affected engine identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018; or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, installed with another affected engine, listed in the same table, on the same airplane, remove one of the engines from the airplane before both engines exceed their respective IPT blade cyclic life limit identified in Appendix 1, Table 1, of the respective NMSB, or within 20 flight cycles, whichever occurs later.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    (1) Engines listed in each group in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, are not to be installed on an airplane together with an engine listed in a different group in the same table once they have exceeded their IPT blade cyclic life limit identified in Appendix 1, Table 1 of the respective NMSB.

    (2) Engines listed in Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018, or Appendix 1, Table 1, of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018, may not be installed on an airplane with engines that have IPT blades installed in accordance with RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J442, Revision 1, dated February 21, 2018, or Initial Issue, dated September 21, 2016; or RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-J465, Revision 2, dated February 28, 2018, or Revision 1, dated January 10, 2017, or Initial Issue, dated December 22, 2016.

    (i) Terminating Action

    Modification of an engine in accordance with the instructions of RR SB Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016, constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD for that engine.

    (j) 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 (k)(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.

    (k) Related Information

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

    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0086, dated April 17, 2018, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-1237.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2018.

    (ii) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000-72-AJ992, Revision 2, dated April 16, 2018.

    (iii) RR Service Bulletin Trent 1000 72-H818, dated November 14, 2016.

    (3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (4) You may view this service information at 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.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 17, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15649 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0590; Product Identifier 2018-NE-24-AD; Amendment 39-19319; AD 2018-13-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engine models. This AD requires inspecting the intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service. This AD was prompted by crack findings on the IPC rotor blades, which could lead to separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 7, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: [email protected]; internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0590.

    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-2018-0590; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2018-0128, dated June 12, 2018 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported on RR Trent 1000 `Pack B' engines, where some IPC Rotor 1 and Rotor 2 blades were found cracked.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight blade release, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, RR issued the NMSB and the applicable NMSB to provide instructions to inspect IPC Rotor 1 blades, IPC Rotor 2 blades (front and rear face) and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time inspection of the affected parts and, depending on the findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0590.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018. The NMSB describes procedures for performing a one-time inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and lists engine serial numbers. 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 RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K099, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018; RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K100, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018; and RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K129, Initial Issue, dated June 11, 2018. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K099 describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blades. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K100 describes procedures for a visual borescope inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts. RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-K129 describes procedures for an ultrasonic inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor blades.

    FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires inspecting the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts, and removing any cracked parts from service.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2018-0590 and Product Identifier 2018-NE-24-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect IPC blades and dovetail post 20 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,700 $0 $1,700 $0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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): 2018-13-07 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-19319; Docket No. FAA-2018-0590; Product Identifier 2018-NE-24-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 7, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls Royce plc (RR) Trent 1000-A, Trent 1000-C, Trent 1000-D, Trent 1000-E, Trent 1000-G, and Trent 1000-H turbofan engine models.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) rotor blade cracks, which could lead to separations resulting in engine failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IPC. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    (1) Inspect the IPC stage 1 rotor blades, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first:

    (i) Within 30 days for the serial number IPC modules installed in the referenced serial number engines listed in Group 1 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.

    (ii) Within 60 days for all IPC modules not listed in Group 1 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018. Those serial number IPC modules specifically identified in Group 2 in Appendix 1 of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018, do not require inspection.

    (iii) At the next engine shop visit, using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(2)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.

    (2) For IPC modules with 1,000 or more flight cycles, inspect the IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts within 30 days of the effective date of this AD or at the next engine shop visit, whichever comes first.

    (i) For IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts inspected on-wing, use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(1)(a) and 3.C.(1)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.

    (ii) For IPC stage 2 rotor blades and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts inspected in shop, use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.(2)(a) and 3.C.(2)(a), of RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK130, dated June 11, 2018.

    (3) For engines that are in an engine shop visit on the effective date of this AD, inspect IPC stage 1 rotor blades, IPC stage 2 rotor blades, and IPC stage 2 dovetail posts before returning the engine to service.

    (4) If any IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post is found cracked during any inspection required by this AD, remove the part from service and replace the part with a part eligible for installation before further flight.

    (h) Definition

    An ”engine shop visit” is the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges (lettered flanges). The separation of engine flanges solely for the purpose of transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (i) Special Flight Permits

    (1) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are subject to the requirements of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD.

    (i) Operators who are prohibited from further flight due to an IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor blade, or an IPC stage 2 dovetail post being found cracked, may perform a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to a location where the engine can be removed from service. This ferry flight must be performed without passengers, involve non-extended operations (ETOPS), and consume no more than three flight cycles.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (2) Reserved.

    (j) 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 (k)(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.

    (k) Related Information

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

    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0128, dated June 12, 2018, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2018-0590.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK130, Initial issue, dated June 11, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: [email protected]; internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

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

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 17, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15668 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0636; Product Identifier 2018-NM-097-AD; Amendment 39-19337; AD 2018-15-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production, but had not been removed. This AD requires inspecting each passenger escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, and removing any installed safety pin. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective August 7, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 7, 2018.

    We must receive comments on this AD by September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine, 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-2018-0636.

    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-2018-0636; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3323.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0129, dated June 15, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Safety pins have been found installed on the escape slide/slide raft inflation reservoir on several aeroplanes. Investigations determined that, on certain aeroplanes, safety pins may not have been removed on the production line.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, would prevent the deployment of the escape slide/slide raft, when required in case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the original issue of the AOT [alert operators transmission], providing inspection instructions. The AOT has been later revised twice to extend the applicability.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of each affected slide/raft and, depending on findings, removal of the safety pin.

    You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0636.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018. This service information describes procedures for inspecting each passenger escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, and removing any installed safety pin and stowing the pin in the stowage pocket of the soft cover of the pack assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because safety pins installed in the inflation reservoirs of passenger escape slides/slide rafts would prevent the deployment of the escape slides/slide rafts when required in case of emergency, possibly resulting in injury to the occupants. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that, for the same reason, good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0636; Product Identifier 2018-NM-097-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $340 $3,400

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $340
    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): 2018-15-05 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19337; Docket No. FAA-2018-0636; Product Identifier 2018-NM-097-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective August 7, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-115, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N airplanes; certificated in any category, having manufacturer serial numbers as identified in Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production, but had not been removed and stowed in the stowage pocket of the soft cover of the pack assembly. We are issuing this AD to address safety pins that had been installed on the inflation reservoirs of escape slides/slide rafts during production but had not been removed, which would prevent deployment of the escape slide/slide raft when required in case of emergency and could result in injury to the occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Definition of Affected Escape Slides/Slide Rafts

    For purposes of this AD, affected escape slides/slide rafts are those installed on the left-hand and right-hand forward and aft passenger doors.

    (h) Inspection

    Within 750 flight hours, or 750 flight cycles, or 4 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of each affected escape slide/slide raft to determine whether the safety pin is installed on the slide inflation reservoir, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.

    (i) Corrective Action

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, a safety pin is found installed, before further flight, remove and stow the affected pin, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, dated December 14, 2017.

    (2) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2018.

    (k) Reporting Specifications

    Although Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018, specifies submitting a report to Airbus, this AD does not require a report.

    (l) 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 (m)(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 Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0129, dated June 15, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0636.

    (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 206-231-3323.

    (n) 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 Alert Operators Transmission A25N012-17, Revision 02, dated May 29, 2018.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 2 Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine, 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 July 13, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15658 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0144; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASW-2] RIN-2120-AA66 Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of July 11, 2018, that establishes restricted areas R-5602A and R-5602B, over a portion of the Fort Sill, OK, R-5601 restricted area complex. The restricted areas using agency listed in the rule is corrected to reflect the military unit responsible for ensuring the restricted areas are used for their designated purpose, scheduling the restricted areas, and coordinating the restricted area airspace use with the controlling agency.

    DATES:

    Effective date 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0144 (83 FR 32061, July 11, 2018), establishing restricted areas R-5602A and R-5602B over a portion of the Fort Sill, OK, restricted area complex. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified an editorial error in the using agency information listed in the restricted area legal descriptions. To accurately reflect the using agency responsible for the scheduling, using, and coordinating with the controlling agency, this correction changes the using agency from “U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK” to read “U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.”

    Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of July 11, 2018 (83 FR 32061) FR Doc. 2018-14783, Establishment of Restricted Areas R-5602A and R-5602B; Fort Sill, OK, is corrected as follows:

    § 73.56 [Amended] R-5602A Fort Sill, OK [Corrected]
    On page 32062, column 3, lines 10, 11, 12, and 13, under Using agency, remove the text that reads “U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK.” and add in its place “U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.” R-5602B Fort Sill, OK [Corrected] On page 32062, column 3, lines 27, 28, 29, and 30, under Using agency, remove the text that reads “U.S. Army, Commanding General, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE) and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK.” and add in its place “U.S. Army, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence (USAFCOE), Fort Sill, OK.” Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2018. Rodger A. Dean Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15737 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1307 [Docket No. CPSC-2014-0033] Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates; Correction AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 27, 2017, the Commission issued a final rule prohibiting children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of certain phthalates. That document contained typographical and technical errors. This document corrects those errors.

    DATES:

    Effective on July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol L. Afflerbach, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7529; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is correcting typographical and technical errors in the final rule, Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates, 16 CFR part 1307, which appeared in the Federal Register on October 27, 2017. 82 FR 49938. This document corrects typographical and technical errors in the listing of phthalates in paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 1307.3. We are making these corrections to avoid possible confusion. This document corrects technical errors; it does not make any substantive changes to the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1307

    Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Law enforcement, and Toys.

    Accordingly, 16 CFR part 1307 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 1307—PROHIBITION OF CHILDREN'S TOYS AND CHILD CARE ARTICLES CONTAINING SPECIFIED PHTHALATES 1. The authority citation for part 1307 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

    § 1307.3 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 1307.3 by: a. Removing the words “di-(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)” in paragraph (a) and adding, in its place, the words “di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)”; and b. Removing the words “and dicyclohexly phthalate (DCHP)” in paragraph (b) and adding, in its place, the words “or dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP)”. Abioye E. Mosheim, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15662 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. CPSC-2016-0017] Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics; Correction AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 26, 2018, the Commission issued a direct final rule to revise the plastics determinations rule to cover certain phthalates that the phthalates final rule prohibits from use in children's toys and child care articles. That document contained typographical errors. This document corrects the typographical errors in the direct final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective on July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John W. Boja, Lead Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7300; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is correcting typographical errors in the direct final rule Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Specified Phthalates: Revision of Determinations Regarding Certain Plastics, 16 CFR part 1308 that appeared in the Federal Register on January 26, 2018. 83 FR 3583. This document corrects typographical errors in the list of phthalates in § 1308.1 of the direct final rule. We are making these corrections to avoid possible confusion. This document corrects technical errors; it does not make any substantive changes to the final rule.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1308

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

    Accordingly, the 16 CFR part 1308 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 1308—PROHIBITION OF CHILDREN'S TOYS AND CHILD CARE ARTICLES CONTAINING SPECIFIED PHTHALATES: DETERMINATIONS REGARDING CERTAIN PLASTICS 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 1308.1 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 1308.1 by: a. Removing the words “di-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate (DEHP)” and adding, in its place, the words “di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)”; and b. Removing the words “dicyclohexly phthalate (DCHP)” and adding, in its place, the words “dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP)”. Abioye E. Mosheim, Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15661 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0442] Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, Atlantic City, NJ AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show special local regulation from 10:30 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Atlantic City, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced each day from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018, for the special local regulation listed at (a)8 in the table to § 100.501.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, you may call or email MST1 Edmund Ofalt, Sector Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 215-271-4889, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 20, 2018, the Greater Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce notified the Coast Guard of a date change through submission of a marine event application. A change of the dates to the previously published dates in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the annual Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show, as listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.501 at (a)8. is necessary due to a schedule change from the sponsor. This year the Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show regulated area from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. August 20-22, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 3-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Atlantic City Air Show which encompasses all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: From a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W.

    During enforcement, vessels or persons must not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless first authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If permission is granted, the person or vessel must comply with the instructions of the COTP, designated representative, or Patrol Commander.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. S.E. Anderson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15608 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0654] Recurring Special Local Regulation; EQT Pittsburgh Three Rivers Regatta, Pittsburgh, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 17 will be enforced from noon through 10:30 p.m. daily from August 3, 2018 through August 5, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the EQT Three Rivers Regatta in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1, Line 17 from noon through 10:30 p.m. daily from August 3, 2018 through August 5, 2018. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters of the Allegheny, Ohio, and Monongahela Rivers during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 100.801, specifies the location of the regulated area for the EQT Three Rivers Regatta. Entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the regulated area must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessel shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

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

    Dated: July 16, 2018. A.W. Demo, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15609 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0696] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 420-foot radius of a portion of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from potential hazards associated with the Marine City Fireworks display.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0696 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazard associated with fireworks from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018 will be a safety concern to anyone within a 420-foot radius of the launch site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being displayed.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 3, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on August 3, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, within a 420-foot radius of position 42°43.15′ N, 082°29.2′ W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 10 p.m. on August 3, 2018 through 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0696 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0696 Safety Zone; Marine City Fireworks, St. Clair River, Marine City, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair River, Marine City, MI, within a 420-foot radius of position 42°43.15′ N, 082°29.2′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 3, 2018. In the case of inclement weather on August 3, 2018, this safety zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15670 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0669] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Port Huron, MI. This zone is intended to restrict and control movement of vessels in a portion of the St. Clair River. Though this is an unsanctioned, non-permitted marine event, this zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during a float down event near Port Huron, MI.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0669 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

    During the afternoon of August 19, 2018, a non-sanctioned public event is scheduled to take place. The event is advertised over various social-media sites, in which a large number of persons float down a segment of the St. Clair River, using inner tubes and other similar floatation devices. The 2018 float down event will occur between approximately 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. This non-sanctioned event has taken place in the month of August annually since 2009.

    No private or municipal entity requested a marine event permit from the Coast Guard for this event, and it has not received state or federal permits since its inception. The event has drawn over 5,000 participants of various ages annually. Despite plans put together by federal, state and local officials, emergency responders and law enforcement officials have been overburdened pursuing safety during this event. Medical emergencies, people drifting across the international border, and people trespassing on residential property when trying to get out of the water before the designated finish line are some of the numerous difficulties encountered during the float down event.

    During the 2014 float-down event, a 19-year-old participant died. During the 2016 float down, a wind shift caused thousands of U.S. citizen rafters with no passports to drift into Canadian waters. The current and wind made it impossible for the rafters to paddle back into U.S. waters, necessitating significant coordination with the Canadian authorities. Despite these events, promotional information for the event continues to be published. More than 5,000 people are again anticipated to float down the river this year. No public or private organization holds themselves responsible as the event sponsor.

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

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined the float down poses significant risk to public safety and property from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The likely combination of large numbers of participants, strong river currents, limited rescue resources, and difficult emergency response scenarios could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities to float down participants and spectators. Therefore, the COTP is establishing a safety zone around the event location to help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and encompass all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00.416′ N; 082°25.333′ W, extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00.416′ N; 082°25.033′ W, following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54.500′ N; 082°27.683′ W, extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54.500′ N; 082°27.966′ W, and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast Guard approved personal floatation device. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will not be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 12 p.m. until 8 p.m. on August 19, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0669 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0669 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S. navigable waters of southern Lake Huron and the St. Clair River adjacent to Port Huron, MI, beginning at Lighthouse Beach and encompassing all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00.416′ N, 082°25.333′ W, extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00.416′ N, 082°25.033′ W, following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54.500′ N, 082°27.683′ W, extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54.500′ N, 082°27.966′ W, and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be in enforced from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. August 19, 2018.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15671 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0523] RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA11 Regulated Navigation Area and Safety Zone, Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from July 23, 2018 through September 30, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 15, 2018 through July 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0523 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management, First Coast Guard District; telephone (617) 223-8351, email [email protected]. You may also call or email Mr. Jeff Yunker, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York, telephone (718) 354-4195, email [email protected].

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

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

    From May 27 to September 29, 2018, Amtrak will be repairing the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge. This repair project consists of two phases, removal and reinstallation, of the swing span of the bridge. On June 22, 2018, the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule establishing a regulated navigation area and safety zone that covered both of these phases, 83 FR 29007. On June 26, 2018 the Coast Guard received notification from the repair project contractor that the reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge is potentially delayed and will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. As a result the Coast Guard is revising this rule so that the regulated navigation area and safety zone covers the entire three week reinstallation phase that remains to be completed.

    During the installation of the swing span a barge and support vessels will be staged near the bridge. The swing span will be lifted from a support barge by a heavy lift crane barge and installed. The preparation for and reinstallation of the swing span will take approximately 72 hours. Amtrak anticipates this work will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the schedule for the reinstallation of the swing span was only recently finalized and provided to the Coast Guard, and timely action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this bridge project. The schedule for the repairs and notification to the Coast Guard was delayed by the late finalization of project details, including coordinating the heavy lift operations with the schedules of known waterway users, and writing a Maintenance of Waterway Traffic Plan. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM because we must establish this RNA and safety zone by July 15, 2018, to allow for timely repairs to the bridge's swing span and promote the safety of the public.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

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

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule revises the RNA and safety zone previously established on June 22, 2018 at 83 FR 29007. On June 26, 2018 the Coast Guard received notification from the repair project contractor that the reinstallation of the swing span of the bridge is potentially delayed and will be conducted over a three-day period between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. As a result the Coast Guard is revising this rule so that the regulated navigation area and safety zone covers the entire three week reinstallation phase that remains to be completed. The revised RNA and safety zone will be enforceable from 6 a.m. on Sunday, July 15, 2018, to 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 30, 2018.

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

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

    BILLING CODE 9110-04-P ER23JY18.000 BILLING CODE 9110-04-C

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

    Additionally, during the reinstallation of the swing span all vessels transiting the Hudson River within the RNA will be required to follow a “Slow-No Wake” speed limit. When this RNA is enforced, no vessel may produce a wake nor attain speeds greater than five (5) knots unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain bare steerageway. The heavy lift operations involving the reinstallation of the bridge swing span are currently scheduled to take place between July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. The Coast Guard is publishing this rule to be effective, and enforceable, through September 30, 2018, in case the project is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

    We anticipate enforcing the RNA and safety zone during the heavy lift operation, occurring between approximately July 15, 2018 and August 4, 2018. The RNA and safety zone is expected to be enforced for approximately one 72-hour period when vessels are preparing for, and conducting, the swing span reinstallation operations. The duration of enforcement for the RNA and safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these waters while the bridge span is being installed. During the enforcement period, all vessels and persons must obtain permission from the First District Commander or a designated representative before entering the safety zone.

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

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

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

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the creation of an RNA and a safety zone, both of which are expected to be enforced for two periods each lasting approximately 72 hours. The RNA is will restrict the speed of vessels transiting the Hudson River within approximately 500 yards upstream and downstream of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge while heavy lift operations are conducted. The safety zone will prohibit vessels on the Hudson and Harlem Rivers from coming within approximately 300 yards of the center of the Spuyten Duyvil Railroad Bridge during heavy lift operations. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination 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.T01-0523 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0523 Regulated navigation area and safety zone; Harlem River and Hudson River, Manhattan, NY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (d) Enforcement periods. This section is enforceable 24 hours a day from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on September 30, 2018. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m. on July 15, 2018 to 11:59 p.m. on August 4, 2018, and at any other time during the effective period of this section when the COTP New York issues a notice of enforcement to be published in the Federal Register. In addition the COTP New York will provide notice by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or both, to announce whenever this section is subject to enforcement or whenever an announced enforcement period will be suspended. Violations of this section may be reported to the COTP New York at (718) 354-4353 or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. A.J. Tiongson, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15711 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224; FRL-9977-82] Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flonicamid in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document as well as tolerances with regional registrations on clover, forage and clover, hay. In addition, this regulation removes certain previously established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective July 23, 2018. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 21, 2018, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 21, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3658) (FRL-9971-46), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E8556) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.613 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid as follows:

    1. Amend § 180.613(a)(1) by establishing a tolerance in or on Celtuce at 4.0 ppm; Florence fennel at 4.0 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; and Crop Group Expansions/Conversions for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 16 ppm; Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.60 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 4.0 ppm; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 ppm; and Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm; and

    2. Amend § 180.613(c), Tolerances with regional registrations, by establishing a tolerance for Clover, forage at 0.9 ppm and Clover, hay at 4.0 ppm.

    In addition, upon establishing the above tolerances, the petitioner requests to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613(a) including Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach at 4.0 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16 ppm; Radish, tops, at 16 ppm; Turnip, greens at 16 ppm; and Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.50 ppm.

    That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Bioscience Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the petition notice of filing as outlined and responded to in Unit IV.C.

    Consistent with the authority in FFDCA 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA is issuing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner sought. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

    A. Toxicological Profile

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

    Flonicamid and its metabolites of concern, TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycinamide), and TFNA-OH (6-hydro-4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), demonstrated low toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies. Flonicamid showed no systemic toxicity in a 28-day dermal study at the limit dose.

    Feeding studies in rats and dogs show the kidney and liver are the target organs for flonicamid toxicity. In repeat-dose subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies, the consistently observed adverse effect in rats and mice were kidney toxicity (i.e., hyaline deposition and nephritis); in dogs, vomiting and increased percentage of reticulocytes (an indicator for potential anemia).

    There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in utero in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. In the rat prenatal developmental toxicity study, maternal toxicity consisted of kidney toxicity (i.e., nephritis) in the absence of developmental toxicity at the highest-dose tested (HDT); in the rabbit, maternal toxicity consisted of decreased food consumption in the absence of developmental toxicity at the HDT. In the rat reproduction and fertility effects study, parental toxicity (i.e., kidney hyaline deposition and luteinizing hormone level increases) occurred at doses much lower than doses causing offspring effects (i.e., decreased body weight and delayed sexual maturation).

    There are no concerns for flonicamid neurotoxicity. In the acute neurotoxicity study in rats, signs of toxicity such as decreased motor activity, tremors, impaired gait, and impaired respiration were observed at lethal dose levels (1,000 mg/kg). In the subchronic neurotoxicity study, decreased body weight, food consumption, foot splay, and motor activity were observed in males at doses greater than 67 mg/kg/day, and in females at 722 mg/kg/day. In the immunotoxicity study in mice, there were no indications of increased immunotoxic potential in the T-cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) assay at the limit dose.

    Mutagenicity studies were negative for flonicamid and its metabolites of concern. Treatment-related lung tumors were observed in CD-1 mice. This tumor type, however, is associated with species and strain sensitivity and is not directly correlated with cancer risks in humans. Nasal cavity tumors in male Wistar rats were linked to incisor inflammation. Nasolacrimal duct tumor findings for females were confounded by the lack of a dose-response, and the biological significance of these tumors is questionable. The determination of carcinogenicity potential for flonicamid was based on the weight of the evidence approach and resulted in the classification of “suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential.” The Agency determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., using a chronic reference dose (cRfD)) adequately accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could result from exposure to flonicamid.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flonicamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “SUBJECT: Flonicamid. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for the Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Clover, Crop Group Conversions to Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetable, Group 5-16; Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16B; Leaf Petiole Vegetable, Subgroup 22B; Leafy Greens, Subgroup 4-16A, Except Spinach; Celtuce; Florence Fennel; and Kohlrabi (DP439902); Expansion of Cottonseed Tolerances to Cottonseed Subgroup 20C, and Revised Use Directions for Citrus (DP441385),” at pages 20-21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0224.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for human risk assessment is presented in the following Table.

    Table—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Flonicamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 3.7 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.04 mg/kg/day
  • Reproduction and Fertility Effects Study in Rats
  • Parental LOAEL = 22 mg/kg/day based on increased kidney weights, kidney hyaline deposition, increased blood serum LH (F1 females).
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification; “Suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity, but not sufficient to assess human carcinogenic potential” based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice. Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to flonicamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing flonicamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flonicamid in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for flonicamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16. As to residue levels in food, an unrefined chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all proposed and established food uses of flonicamid. Tolerance-level residues were combined with 100 percent crop treated (PCT) estimates. Separate tolerances established for potato granules/flakes, tomato paste, and tomato puree were based on processing studies and DEEM default processing factors were used for the other processed commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to flonicamid. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for flonicamid. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

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

    The drinking water assessment was conducted using both a parent only exposure, and a total toxic residue approach, which considers the parent compound and its major degradates of concern. Total toxic residues include 4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA), 4-trifluoromethylnictinamide (TFNA-AM), 6-hydro-4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA-OH), N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine (TFNG), and N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycinamide (TFNG-AM).

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), version 1.0, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flonicamid for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.94 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 9.92 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary exposure assessment, the water concentration value of 9.92 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Flonicamid is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicity database for flonicamid includes prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a multigeneration reproduction toxicity study in rats. There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in utero in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the multi-generation reproduction study. No developmental effects were seen in rabbits. In the multi-generation reproduction study, developmental delays in the offspring (decreased body weights, delayed sexual maturation) were seen only in the presence of parental toxicity (kidney and blood effects). Also, there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for all effects. The degree of concern for prenatal and/or post-natal susceptibility is, therefore, low due to the lack of evidence of qualitative and quantitative susceptibility.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x, except where assessing risks from inhalation exposure as discussed below. Those decisions are based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for flonicamid is essentially complete, except for an outstanding subchronic 28-day inhalation study. In the absence of a subchronic inhalation study, EPA has retained a 10X FQPA SF to assess risks from inhalation exposure, although at present, residential inhalation exposure is not expected from existing or pending uses of flonicamid.

    ii. There is no indication that flonicamid is a neurotoxic chemical. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the clinical signs observed from available acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were not the result of a neurotoxic mechanism. Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

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

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues and where applicable, default processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to flonicamid in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flonicamid.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, flonicamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flonicamid from food and water will utilize 60% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for flonicamid.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Flonicamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposures.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the information referenced in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the cPAD is protective of possible cancer effects from flonicamid, and as evidenced in Unit III.E.2, aggregate exposure to flonicamid is below the cPAD. Aggregate cancer risk from existing and proposed food uses is below EPA's level of concern.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. FMC Method No. P-3561M, a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, is an acceptable enforcement method for flonicamid and its metabolites in plant commodities. The method determines residues of flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA-AM, TFNA, and TFNG. The method has been sufficiently validated in five diverse crops. Depending on the matrix, the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 or 0.02 ppm. The limit of detection (LOD) can be estimated as one-third the LOQ.

    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    There are Codex MRLs for residues of flonicamid in or on celery at 1.5 ppm, head lettuce at 1.5 ppm, leaf lettuce at 8.0 ppm, radish tops at 20 ppm, and cottonseed at 0.60 ppm. The Codex MRL and U.S. tolerance on cottonseed are harmonized. The petitioned-for tolerance on Brasssica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B which includes radish tops is being established for Brasssica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B, except radish tops at 16 ppm. An existing radish, tops tolerance at 16 ppm is being revised to 20 ppm to harmonize with the established Codex MRL. EPA is not harmonizing the relevant U.S. tolerances with the other established Codex MRLs for the following reasons. The U.S. tolerance for celery is set at 4.0 ppm as part of the Leaf Petiole vegetable subgroup 22B. The U.S. tolerance for lettuce, head and lettuce, leaf is set at 4.0 as part of the Leafy greens, subgroup 4-16A, is harmonized with Canada since the greatest percentage of U.S. exports are to Canada. This subgroup is not harmonized with the Codex tolerance at 8.0 ppm. In the case of celery and head lettuce, lowering the tolerances could result in exceedances when domestic growers apply flonicamid in accordance with label directions.

    C. Response to Comments

    One anonymous public comment was received on the notice of filing raising concern about the need to assess impacts of regulations on the American people. This comment did not raise issues within the scope of the FFDCA, which directs the Agency's to assess certain information in determining whether tolerances are safe.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The EPA-established tolerances are identical to the proposed tolerance levels, except for the tolerances for clover. First, EPA adjusted the number of significant figures in the tolerance levels clover, forage proposed at 0.9 was revised to 0.90 ppm. In accordance with its standard practice to provide greater precision about the levels of residues that are permitted by a tolerance, EPA is adding an additional significant figure to the petitioned-for tolerance values. This is intended to avoid the situation where residues may be higher than the tolerance level, but as a result of rounding would be considered non-violative. For example, Clover, forage tolerance proposed at 0.9 ppm was established at 0.90 ppm, to avoid an observed hypothetical tolerance at 0.94 ppm being rounded to 0.9 ppm.

    Also, EPA established a tolerance for clover, hay at 5.0 ppm, not at proposed 4.0 ppm because some of the residue data submitted by IR-4 were not converted to parent equivalents while all the residue data used by EPA were converted to parent equivalents.

    EPA calculated tolerance levels using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures and available field trial data residues. Additionally, the petitioned-for tolerance on Brasssica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B which includes radish tops is being established for Brasssica, leafy greens subgroup 4-16B, except radish tops at 16 ppm. Lastly, the existing radish, tops tolerance at 16 ppm is being revised to 20 ppm to harmonize with the established Codex MRL.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on Brassica leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except radish tops at 16 ppm; Celtuce at 4.0 ppm; Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.60 ppm; Florence fennel at 4.0 ppm; Kohlrabi at 1.5 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 4.0 ppm; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach at 4.0 ppm; Radish, tops at 20 ppm, and Vegetables, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 1.5 ppm. In addition, tolerances with regional restrictions are established on Clover, forage at 0.90 ppm; and Clover, hay at 5.0 ppm. Lastly, certain established flonicamid tolerances are being removed including entries for Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; Radish, tops; Turnip, greens; and Cotton, undelinted seed as they are superseded by this regulatory action.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Michael L. Goodis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.613: a. In the table in paragraph (a)(1): i. Remove the entry “Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A”; ii. Add alphabetically the commodity “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except radish, tops”; iii. Remove the entry “Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B”; iv. Add alphabetically the commodities “Celtuce” and “Cottonseed subgroup 20C”; v. Remove the entry “Cotton, undelinted seed”; vi. Add alphabetically the commodities “Florence fennel”; “Kohlrabi”; “Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B”; and “Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach”; vii. Revise the entry for “Radish, tops”; viii. Remove the entry “Turnip, greens”; ix. Add alphabetically the commodity “Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16”; and x. Remove the entry “Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4, except spinach”. b. Revise paragraph (c).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.613 Flonicamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except radish, tops 16 Celtuce 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.60 Florence fennel 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Kohlrabi 1.5 Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B 4.0 Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A, except spinach 4.0 *    *    *    *    * Radish, tops 20 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 1.5 *    *    *    *    *

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with regional registration, as defined by § 180.1(1), are established for the residues of the insecticide flonicamid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide, and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM (4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of flonicamid, in or on the following commodities:

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Clover, forage 0.90 Clover, hay 5.0
    [FR Doc. 2018-15449 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Parts 531 and 532 [Docket No. 17-10] RIN 3072-AC68 Amendments to Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) amends its rules governing Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC) Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements. The regulatory changes modernize, update, and reduce regulatory burdens.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact Florence A. Carr, Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis. Phone: (202) 523-5796. Email: [email protected]. For legal questions, contact Tyler J. Wood, General Counsel. Phone: (202) 523-5740. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs) B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs) C. Pre-Rulemaking Differences Between Tariffs; NSAs; NRAs D. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and Overview of Comments E. Summary of November 29, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. Removal of NSA Filing and Publication Requirements 2. Allowance of Non-Rate Economic Terms in NRAs 3. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking III. Overview of Comments IV. Final Rule and Response to Comments A. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication Requirements 1. Comments 2. Discussion B. Allow Non-Rate Economic Terms in NRAs 1. Comments 2. Discussion C. Third-Party Pass-Through Assessorial Charges 1. Comments 2. Discussion D. Authorize Amendments and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking 1. Comments 2. Discussion E. Elimination of All Tariff Publishing Requirements 1. Comments 2. Discussion F. Summary of Post Final Rule NSA/NRA Differences V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary

    The Commission is amending its rules at 46 CFR part 531 governing NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSA) to remove the NSA filing and publication requirements. The Commission also is amending its rules at 46 CFR part 532 to permit NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRA) to be amended at any time and to allow the inclusion of non-rate economic terms. In addition, an NVOCC may provide for the shipper's acceptance of the NRA by booking a shipment thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating a prominent written notice to such effect in each NRA or amendment. In addition, the Commission is including clarifying language in part 532 to reflect the current treatment of third-party, pass-through assessorial charges and the enforceability of NRAs.

    II. Background

    The Shipping Act of 1984 (the Shipping Act or the Act) expanded the options for pricing liner services by introducing the concept of carriage under service contracts filed with the Commission. Public Law 98-237, section 8(c). Liner services could be priced via negotiated contracts between ocean common carriers and their shipper customers, rather than solely by public tariffs. Per the Shipping Act and FMC regulations, ocean freight rates, surcharges, and assessorial charges had to be published in tariffs or agreed to via service contracts filed with the Commission. Contemporaneous with the filing of service contracts, ocean carriers were required to make publicly available statements of essential terms in tariff format.

    The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA) amended the Shipping Act of 1984 as it related to service contracts. Public Law 105-258, section 106. No longer did contract rates need to be published in the tariff publication, and the essential terms publication was limited to: origin and destination port ranges, commodities, minimum volume or portion, and duration. Nevertheless, though the Shipping Act and its amendments provided for more efficiency and flexibility for ocean common carriers through the use of service contracts, similar relief was not extended to NVOCCs, which were still required to publish tariffs and adhere to those tariffs when transporting cargo.

    A. NVOCC Service Arrangements (NSAs)

    In 2003, NCBFAA filed a petition seeking exemption from some of the tariff requirements of the Shipping Act of 1984. See Docket No. P5-03, Petition of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America. Inc. for Limited Exemption of Certain Tariff Requirements of the Shipping Act of 1984. In response, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to exempt NVOCCs from the tariff provisions of the Shipping Act and permit them to enter into contracts with shippers similar to ocean common carrier service contracts. NPRM: Non-Vessel Operating Service Arrangements, 69 FR 63981 (Nov. 3, 2004). The Commission determined that in order to ensure there was no substantial reduction in competition among NVOCCs, the exemption had to be available to all NVOCCs compliant with both section 19 of the Shipping Act and the conditions of the exemption. Id. The Commission proposed that “the exemption be conditioned on the same statutory and regulatory requirements and protections applicable to VOCCs' service contracts: namely, filing of executed agreements; publication of essential terms of those agreements; and confidential treatment, similar to that set forth in 46 CFR part 530.” Id. at 63986. The Commission also proposed the required publication of the essential terms of all NSAs in automated systems and the confidential filing of the text of those NSAs with the Commission. Id. at 63987. The Commission further proposed “making applicable to carriage under an NSA, those provisions of the Shipping Act that would be applicable to service contracts.” Id. The Commission's final rule provided a limited exemption and permitted NSAs, similar to service contracts, subject to filing and publication requirements in 46 CFR part 531. Final Rule: Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Service Arrangements, 69 FR 75850 (Dec. 20, 2004). To ensure that the exemption as proposed would not result in a substantial reduction in competition, the Commission limited the exemption to individual NVOCCs acting in their capacity as carriers. Id. at 75851. The Commission also decided to allow affiliated NVOCCs to jointly offer NSAs. Id. at 75852.

    B. NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs)

    In 2008, the NCBFAA filed another petition with the Commission. This petition sought an exemption from mandatory rate tariff publication. See Docket No. P1-08, Petition of the National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America. Inc. for Exemption from Mandatory Rate Tariff Publication (filed July 31, 2008). The proposal sought to exempt NVOCCs from the provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984 requiring them to publish and/or adhere to rate tariffs “in those instances where they have individually negotiated rates with their shipping customers and memorialized those rates in writing.” NCBFAA Pet. in Docket No. P1-08, at 10.

    By NPRM issued May 7, 2010, the Commission proposed to permit the use of NRAs in lieu of publishing rates in tariffs, subject to conditions, including (1) a requirement for NVOCCs to continue publishing standard rules tariffs with contractual terms and conditions governing shipments, including any assessorial charges and surcharges, (2) a requirement to make available NVOCC rules tariffs to shippers free of charge; (3) a requirement that NRA rates be mutually agreed to and memorialized in writing by the date the cargo is received for shipment; and (4) a requirement that NVOCCs who use NRAs must retain, and make available upon request to the Commission, documentation confirming the terms, and agreed rate, for each shipment for a period of five years. NPRM: NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 75 FR 25150, 25154 (May 7, 2010). In the NPRM, the Commission also determined that under 46 U.S.C. 40103, the exemption could be granted as doing so would not result in a substantial reduction in competition or be detrimental to commerce. 75 FR at 25153.

    The Commission subsequently granted the exemption, relieving NVOCCs from the burden and costs of tariff rate publication when using this new class of carrier rate arrangements. Final Rule: NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, 76 FR 11351 (Mar. 2, 2011). In determining whether to grant the exemption the Commission considered: Competition among NVOCCs; competition between NVOCCs and VOCCs; competition among vessel-operating common carriers (VOCCs); as well as competition among shippers. Id. at 11352. The Commission determined that granting the exemption would not result in a substantial reduction in competition in any of the above categories. Id. at 11352-11353. Analyzing whether granting the exemption would be detrimental to commerce, the Commission determined that such NRAs would be beneficial to commerce because the exemption would “reduce NVOCC operating costs and increase competition in the U.S. trades.” Id. at 11353. The Commission also determined that “NVOCCs entering into NRAs continue to be subject to the applicable requirements and strictures of the Shipping Act, including oversight by the Commission.” Id. at 11354.

    As a condition to offering NRAs, NVOCCs were required to provide their rules tariffs to the public free of charge. 76 FR at 11358. The Commission also determined not to allow for amendment of an NRA after receipt of the cargo by the carrier or its agent. Id. Consistent with the Petition's focus upon negotiated rates only, the Commission determined not to permit NRAs to include non-rate economic terms, such as rate methodology, credit and payment terms, forum selection or arbitration clauses, or minimum quantities. Id. at 11355.

    C. Pre-Rulemaking Differences Between Tariffs, NSAs, and NRAs

    The primary differences between NRAs and NSAs are the formality of the arrangement and the scope of terms covered. Currently, NRAs must be in writing, and shipper acceptance must be in writing, such as by email. See NPRM: Amendments to Regulations Governing NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements and NVOCC Service Arrangements, 82 FR 56781, 56786 (Nov. 30, 2017). NRAs have a “stated cargo quantity,” with no minimum volume or quantity commitment. See 46 CFR 532.3(a). NRAs cover specific points of origin and destination and include rates effective on and after a stated date or within a defined time frame. See § 532.3(a)-(b). The rates and applicable shipments must be specified as well as the names of the parties. § 532.5(b). Non-rate economic terms, including liquidated damages, are not currently permitted in NRAs. See 76 FR at 11355. Instead, such terms are included in the NVOCC's “rules tariff,” which must be made available electronically and free of charge. See §§ 532.3(c) and 532.4. In addition, NRAs may not be modified after the time the initial shipment is received by the carrier or its agent (including originating carriers in the case of through transportation). § 532.5(e). NRAs are not required to be filed with the FMC, but they must be maintained for a 5-year period and made available to the Commission upon request. See § 532.7(a)-(b).

    NSAs, on the other hand, must be signed by the parties. 46 CFR 531.6(b)(9). Unlike NRAs, NSAs contain a minimum volume or quantity commitment, as well as defined service level and a certain rate or rate schedule over a fixed period of time. § 531.3(p). NSAs also include port ranges (port to port) or geographic areas (intermodal) as opposed to specific points of origin and destination. See § 531.6(b)(1)-(2). NSAs are also broader in scope than NRAs, and may include non-rate economic terms, including liquidated damages in the event of nonperformance. See § 531.6(b)(7). In addition, NSAs may be modified at any time. See § 531.3(c).

    The filing requirements for NSAs and NRAs also currently differ. NSAs and amendments must be filed with the Commission in SERVCON. See § 531.6(a). Like NRAs, however, NSAs and associated records must be maintained for a 5-year period and must be made available to the Commission upon request. § 531.12. Liquidated damages by way of “provisions in the event of nonperformance” may also be provided for. See 46 CFR part 531.

    In comparison, carrier tariffs provide for port ranges (port to port) or geographic areas (intermodal), but also Tariff Rate Items (TRIs). See 46 CFR 520.4. A TRI is a single freight rate in effect on and after a specific date or for a specific time period, for the transportation of a stated cargo quantity, which may move from origin to destination under a single specified set of transportation conditions. § 520.4(f). TRIs have no minimum volume or quantity commitment like NSAs, and rate reductions can take effect immediately; however, rate increases must be published at least 30 days in advance. See § 520.8(a). There is no provision for liquidated damages for goods moving under tariffs, and unlike NSAs and NRAs, tariffs are available and applicable to all shippers. See § 520.12(e). No written signature is required. Tariff publication data is required to be maintained by carriers and conferences for 5 years and accessible on-line for 2 years. § 520.10. Tariffs must be made available to the public at a reasonable fee. See id.

    D. NCBFAA Petition for Rulemaking and Overview of Comments

    NCBFAA petitioned the FMC on April 16, 2015, to initiate a rulemaking to eliminate the NSA provisions in 46 CFR part 531 in their entirety, or alternatively, eliminate the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Consolidated with that request, NCBFAA also asked the Commission to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to include economic terms beyond rates, and to delete 46 CFR 532.5(e), which precludes any amendment or modification of an NRA after the initial shipment is received by the NVOCC or its agent. NCBFAA proposed expanding the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to allow modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement between NVOCCs and their customers. NCBFAA Petition at 14.

    NCBFAA argued that shippers and NVOCCs do not benefit from the current preclusion of amendments. NCBFAA Pet. at 10. NCBFAA also argued that shippers and NVOCCs regularly seek to negotiate on a broad range of service terms and that “each of these terms are relevant to some extent to every rate and service negotiation between an NVOCC and an existing or prospective customer. Yet, none of the items . . . can properly be included in an NRA.” See id. at 8-9. NCBFAA furthermore contended that as NSAs must be filed with the Commission, and essential terms of NSAs also need to be published in tariffs, NSAs are more burdensome than regular rate tariffs. See id. at 7-8. NCBFAA also argued that continuing the filing requirement for NSAs does not appear to provide any regulatory benefit. See id. at 12-13.

    On April 28, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Filing and Request for Comments on NCBFAA's petition. 80 FR 23549 (Apr. 28, 2015). Sixteen sets of comments were received from a broad cross-section of industry stakeholders, including licensed NVOCCs and freight forwarders, a major trade association representing beneficial cargo owners, and VOCCs.

    The majority of the ocean transportation intermediary (OTI) comments expressed general support for the petition. Commenters supported either the elimination of 46 CFR Part 531 in its entirety, or eliminating the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Many supported allowing economic terms beyond rates in NRAs, as well as the modification of NRAs at any time, upon mutual agreement.

    The World Shipping Counsel, whose comments were supported by Crowley, urged even-handed regulatory relief with respect to VOCCs as well. WSC cited prior requests that VOCCs have made for changes to the Commission's regulations governing service contract amendment filings. WSC proposed “that service contract amendments be permitted to be filed within 90 days of the filing of the underlying commercial agreement.” See WSC at 1.

    The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) did not support the elimination of Part 531 in its entirety. UPS also opposed any restrictions upon, or the elimination of, Part 531, expressing support for the continued use of NSAs.

    DGR Logistics noted the potential for logistical and regulatory challenges to NVOCCs caused by the requirement at 46 CFR 532.5(c) that an NRA “be agreed to” by the shipper prior to receipt of cargo by the common carrier or its agent. See DGR at 2.

    On August 2, 2016, the Commission granted NCBFAA's petition to “initiate a rulemaking with respect to the revisions discussed in the petition.” Because the Commission was in the process of a separate rulemaking to amend portions of Part 531 related to NSAs,1 however, the Commission delayed initiating the requested rulemaking until after the rulemaking in Docket No. 16-05 was concluded.

    1 Docket No. 16-05, Service Contracts and NVOCC Service Arrangements.

    E. Summary of November 29, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. Removal of NSA Filing and Publication Requirements

    The Commission noted in the NPRM that the majority of the NVOCC commenters supported the NCBFAA position on eliminating the NSA filing and publication requirements. See 82 FR at 56785. Furthermore, the NPRM stated that OTI commenters had made a substantial case that continuing the filing requirement for NSAs did not appear to offer any regulatory benefit. Id. The Commission therefore proposed to remove the requirement that NSAs be filed in SERVCON and the requirement that an NVOCC publish the essential terms of an NSA. Id. The Commission also explained that shippers, whom the Commission originally identified as the group to benefit from the requirement of essential terms publication in the original 2003 NSA rulemaking, had not since commented on the continuing utility of essential terms publications, and thus maintaining the requirement appeared to provide little regulatory benefit. Id. By way of removing the essential terms and NSA filing requirements, but keeping NSAs as an option, the Commission stated that it was seeking to preserve choice, but reduce costs. Id. The Commission noted that containing both service and rate provisions may be less than ideal for shippers or NVOCCs with low shipment volumes; however, considerable volumes of cargo are currently transported under the current contract model. Id. The NPRM stated that NVOCC members of NCBFAA would prefer the flexibility of including both service and rate-related items in their contract offerings if relieved of the filing and publication burdens of same. Id. at 56786.

    The NPRM also addressed WSC's concerns regarding regulatory relief regarding service contracts by noting that the relief granted by the Commission in Docket 16-05 allowed amendments to service contracts, including multiple service contract amendments, to become effective during a 30-day period prior to being filed with the Commission. Id. at 56785. Furthermore, the Commission stated that further relief to VOCCs for service contracts may be undertaken by the Commission after it has had an opportunity to analyze the impact of the 30-day filing period on VOCC operations and shipper feedback. Id.

    In order to readily determine which NVOCCs are using NSAs in the absence of the filing and publication requirements, the NPRM also proposed requiring NVOCCs to include a prominent notice in their rules tariffs indicating their intention to use NSAs, mirroring the requirement in § 532.6 for NVOCCs using NRAs. In addition, the Commission proposed requiring NVOCCs using NSAs to provide electronic access to their rules tariffs to the public free of charge, mirroring the requirement in § 532.4 for NVOCCs using NRAs.

    2. Allowance of Non-Rate Economic Terms in NRAs

    In the NPRM, the Commission addressed the allowance of non-rate economic terms in NRAs by reaffirming its intention to provide a new business model for NVOCCs who cannot use NSAs and inviting further comment, “particularly from shippers currently using NRAs, on how expanding the NRA exemption to allow inclusion in NRAs of non-rate economic terms may impact their commercial business operations.” See 82 FR at 56785.

    3. Authorize Amendments of NRAs and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking

    In the NPRM, the Commission noted the need for NRAs to respond to an ever-changing marketplace. 82 FR at 56786. The Commission also noted that the smaller cargo volume and commenters' statements demonstrate that NRAs tend to be short-term and transactional in nature. Id. The Commission expressed its desire to limit regulatory burden, and noted that NVOCCs and their customers should not be compelled to create a new NRA in every instance simply because the rules do not currently provide for amendment. Id. The Commission, furthermore, acknowledged that it was appropriate to permit NRAs to be extended or amended upon acceptance or agreement by the shipper customer. Id.

    The Commission, noting DGR Logistics' comment on the potential for logistical and regulatory challenges to the NVOCC caused by the requirement at 46 CFR 532.5(c), also proposed to allow NRAs to be more flexibly created, or be amended, upon the shipper's acceptance in the form of a request for booking pursuant to the NRA. Id. The Commission noted that this practice would more closely correlate to the manner in which a shipper accepts a written rate quote under standard tariff rates and rules, i.e., by communicating its agreement solely in terms of instructing the NVOCC to book the cargo for shipment thereunder. Id. In light of this new practice, the Commission proposed that each NVOCC seeking to allow recognition of shipper acceptance of an NRA through booking incorporate a prominent written notice on each NRA or amendment. Id.

    The NPRM also pointed out that as this new practice was meant to be optional, the Commission would not eliminate the requirement that a shipper's agreement to an NRA should otherwise be in writing or by email. Id. The NPRM invited public comment on allowing NRA acceptance through booking, as well as on whether to require specific wording on the practice in NRAs and amendments in order to provide prominent notice to shippers, as the NPRM proposed. Id.

    III. Overview of Comments

    Thirty-nine sets of comments were received in response to the November 29, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which may be found at the Electronic Reading Room on the Commission's website at https://www.fmc.gov/17-10/. Comments were received from NCBFAA; ABS Consulting (ABS); Mohawk Global Statistics (Mohawk); DJR Logistics, Inc. (DJR); New York New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc. (NYNJFFF&BA); NITL; CaroTrans International, Inc., (CaroTrans); Vanguard Logistics Services (USA), Inc., (Vanguard); Serra International, Inc., (Serra); FedEx Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage, Inc. (FedEx); Florida Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association (FCBF); Kelly Global Logistics, Inc.; North Atlantic International Ocean Carrier; ECU Worldwide; Mabel Olivera, Vice President of Operations for Clover Systems, LLC; IContainers (USA); A Customs Brokerage (ACB), Inc.; Omara Valles, Operations Manager of Clover Internacional, LLC; Hemisphere Cargo, Corp.; KCarlton International (dba KCI Shipping Line); Express Logistics Services, LLC; Geodis Freight Forwarding; Yusen Logistics (Yusen); Asia Shipping USA, Inc. (Asia); Parker & Company Worldwide (Parker); Quadrant Magnetics (Quadrant); Crescent Products USA LLC (Crescent); Geek Net Inc. (Geek Net); Connor Corporation (Connor); Bonney Forge Corporation (Bonney Forge); RBH Sound (RBH); Dart Maritime Service, Inc. (Dart); CJ International, Inc. (CJ International); Sefco Export Management Company, Inc. (Sefco); Eastman Chemical Company; Thunderbolt Global Logistics (Thunderbolt); Shipco Transport Inc. (Shipco); John S. Connor Global Logistics (Connor Global); Livingston International, Inc. (Livingston).

    The comments represent a broad group of industry stakeholders, including licensed NVOCCs and freight forwarders, a tariff publishing vendor, and shippers.

    No commenters, except Dart and NITL, were opposed to allowing acceptance of an NRA to be demonstrated by booking (some even supported allowing receipt of cargo prior to acceptance/booking). No commenters were expressly against allowing economic terms beyond rates in NRAs, the modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement, or the elimination of the filing and essential terms publication requirements for NSAs. Some commenters also noted the benefits of NSAs, but sought more flexibility in the application of NSAs. Commenters also sought clarification on the role of pass-through and assessorial charges.

    Regarding the Commission's requirement for prominent written notice in order to recognize acceptance of an NRA through booking, some commenters were in favor of the written notice along with specific wording for the notice, whereas some commenters were against any such requirement, as well as against any specific wording.

    IV. Final Rule and Response to Comments A. Remove the NSA Filing and Publication Requirements 1. Comments

    NCBFAA favors exempting NSAs from both the filing and essential terms publication requirements and supports the Commission's proposal. NCBFAA at 3. A significant number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members 2 also stated that “[t]he FMC should repeal its existing requirement for NVOCCs to file negotiated service arrangements (NSAs) or to publish essential terms of NSAs in their tariffs as this process is extremely cumbersome and is not used by the trade in day-to-day business as it does not reflect the realities of international trade and commerce.” NCBFAA/FBCF Member Comments. Yusen Logistics, an NVOCC, also “agree[d] with the Commission's proposal to eliminate the necessity for NVOCCs to file NSAs.” Yusen at 3. Connor Global, Mohawk, and Thunderbolt support eliminating the necessity for NVOCCs to file NSAs. Connor Global at 2; Mohawk at 2; Thunderbolt at 3. Serra supports eliminating the NSA filing requirement and publication requirement for essential terms and notes the reduction in administrative costs and the lack of any benefit provided by filing and publication. Serra at 2. “Shipco [an NVOCC] agrees with the Commission's position that the NSA filing and essential terms publication requirements should be eliminated.” Shipco at 4. Thunderbolt, another OTI, also agrees that the NSA filing requirement for NVOCCs should be eliminated. Thunderbolt at 3. Sefco, also an OTI, favors ending the requirement to file NSAs with the Commission and eliminating 46 CFR part 531 in its entirety. Sefco at 2-3. NITL agrees with the elimination of the NSA filing and essential terms publication requirements. NITL at 4. NYNJFFF&BA are also “in favor of eliminating the NSA filing and publication requirements.” NYNJFFF&BA at 4.

    2 The Florida Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association (FCBF), along with a number of individual NCBFAA and FCBF members submitted identical comments. See Comments of FCBF, Kelly Global Logistics, Inc., North Atlantic International Ocean Carrier, ECU Worldwide (NVOCC) and Mabel Olivera, Vice President Operations for Clover Systems, LLC, IContainers (USA), A Customs Brokerage (ACB), Inc. Omara Valles, Operations Manager, of Clover International, LLC., Hemisphere Cargo, Corp., KCarlton International dba KCI Shipping Line, Geodis Freight Forwarding. One commenter, Express Logistics Services, LLC., submitted nearly identical comments but did not identify itself as a member of NCBFAA or FCBF. For ease of reference, we refer to these as “NCBFAA/FCBF Member Comments” throughout the final rule.

    CJ International, customs broker/freight forwarder agrees with the Commission's proposal to remove the requirement to file NSAs with the Commission and publish essential terms in tariffs, stating that “NSAs, like tariff rate filings, are burdensome and costly to file and maintain, yet it is unclear what the purpose is and who benefits from either of these items. Neither tariffs or NSAs are ever reviewed by clients.” CJ International at 2. FedEx states that “essential terms serve no purpose” and supports removing the requirement to publish them as well as the definition of essential terms in § 531.3(q). FedEx at 2.

    CaroTrans, an NVOCC, supports eliminating the NSA filing and publication of essential terms requirement, which it contends render NSAs unnecessarily burdensome and time consuming to use. Carotrans at 4-5. CaroTrans, however, still recognizes that NSAs can be a useful tool. Id. at 4. CaroTrans asserts that the Commission should “amend the regulations authorizing and governing NSAs in order to make them more flexible. This would ensure that NSAs continue to be an option for NVOCCs and their customers that under some circumstances prefer the increased formality of the NSA.” Id. at 5. CaroTrans states that “the proposed reform would substantially improve the NSA process without compromising any protections intended by the regulations for shippers.” Id. at 5.

    Livingston International, Inc., an NVOCC, noted the benefits of NSAs, but asked the Commission “to amend the regulations authorizing and governing NSAs in order to make them more flexible.” Livingston at 5. Livingston contends that “the filing and publication requirements in Part 531 should be eliminated, as they pose an unnecessary burden on NVOCCs and shippers. Nevertheless, it is Livingston's position that an NSA can serve as a useful tool to facilitate ocean transportation services for certain customers.” Id. at 4. Livingston states, “an NSA can provide a meaningful commitment of cargo from a shipper over a longer and specified period of time, and can be amended repeatedly to provide some ability to adjust to market conditions. Furthermore, an NSA can be made subject to charges published by an NVOCC in its tariff.” Id. Livingston asserts that amending the regulations to make them more flexible “would ensure that NSAs continue to be an option for shippers and NVOCCs but with reduced regulatory burden.” Id. at 5. NITL also “believes that NSAs should remain an option for shippers and NVOCCs that prefer the increased formality of the NSA requirements.” NITL at 4. “The League also agrees with the Commission that the agency can remove any unnecessary or burdensome regulatory requirements without eliminating the NSA option entirely.” Id.

    Dart, a tariff publishing vendor, advised against removing NSA filing requirement. See Dart at 2. “While many are calling for the removal of the NSA regulations, I agreed with the comments for its continued inclusion and usage, while pointing out the obvious that this instrument is OPTIONAL. It only effects the shippers and OTIs that choose to utilize them.” Id. Dart advised that the Commission should not end the SERVCON system or stop requiring submission of Service Contracts and NSAs. Id. In particular, Dart asserted that the filing requirement is critical to the FMC's role as a neutral “referee” in trade disputes and assures independence from protective commercial interests. Dart also argued that the compliance costs of the requirement are no more than the cost of sending an email and that the requirement poses no economic burden. Id.

    2. Discussion

    Commenters overwhelmingly support the Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement that NSAs be filed with the Commission in SERVCON, as well as to eliminate the requirement that an NVOCC publish the essential terms of an NSA. The majority, nevertheless, did not call for the complete removal of NSAs and part 531. Dart, arguing that the Commission should not end the filing requirement, was the only commenter who submitted any opposition to the Commission's proposal to maintain part 531—but to eliminate the filing and essential terms publication requirements. There was also clear support for the continued use of NSAs.

    The Commission concurs with the statement from Livingston that amending the regulations to make them more flexible “would ensure that NSAs continue to be an option for shippers and NVOCCs but with reduced regulatory burden.” See Livingston at 5. As the Commission has noted previously, there does not appear to be any regulatory benefit from continuing the filing requirement for NSAs, and the group intended to benefit from the original 2003 NSA rulemaking, shippers, have not argued for maintaining the requirement.

    In response to Dart's concerns about the need for filed NSAs to permit the FMC to address commercial disputes, we believe that the recordkeeping requirements in § 531.12 will ensure adequate Commission oversight. NVOCCs must continue to retain NSAs, amendments, and associated records for five years from the termination of the NSA and must provide them Commission staff within 30 days of a request. These requirements will permit the Commission to investigate any disputes or issues with respect to particular NSAs. We also respectfully disagree with Dart's contention that the requirement imposes little to no regulatory burden. As discussed below in the Rulemaking Analysis section and in the Commission's information collection request filed with the Office of Management and Budget, removing the filing requirement will reduce the burden hours for NVOCCs by 162 hours, or approximately $10,728.37.3 Eliminating these burdens will provide regulatory relief to NVOCCs.

    3 Specifically, following the promulgation of the 2017 final rule in Docket No. 16-05, the Commission estimated that the NSA filing requirement resulted in 162 burden hours to NVOCCs. See Narrative Supporting Statement for 46 CFR part 531 (Mar. 17, 2017), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=72337101. And as described below, this final rule eliminates those burden hours. The Commission estimates the cost of the NSA requirements based on assumptions regarding the percentage of burden hours attributable to various respondent employees and annual salary estimates for those employees. Using those estimates, the cost associated with the NSA filing requirements is $10,728.37.

    By way of removing the essential terms and NSA filing requirements, but still allowing NSAs as an option, the Commission can reduce costs and preserve choice while allowing a vehicle, NSAs, to continue to serve those members of the industry that prefer the extra formality and options allowed by NSAs. The Commission believes that while rate and service provisions in NSAs may not be ideal for NVOCCs and shippers with lower shipment volumes, a considerable amount of cargo is currently transported under NSAs, and they have proven to be a valued contract model. As stated by CaroTrans, the Commission believes this rule will “substantially improve the NSA process without compromising any protections intended by the regulations for shippers.” See CaroTrans at 5.

    Finally, we agree with FedEx that the definition of “statement of essential terms” in § 531.3 is unnecessary given the elimination of the publication requirement. Accordingly, this final rule deletes that definition.4

    4 This final rule also clarifies the revised regulatory text in § 531.8. The proposed revisions to § 531.8 in the NPRM would have included the following provision, “Each time any part of an NSA is amended, the `Effective Date' will be the date of the amendment.” By providing that the effective date for amendments would be the date of the amendment, however, this proposed change could have been misinterpreted as prohibiting parties from setting future effective dates for amendments. Accordingly, the final rule makes clear that the effective date of an amendment will be either the date of the amendment or a future date agreed to by the parties.

    B. Allow Non-Rate Economic Terms in NRAs 1. Comments

    NCBFAA has urged the Commission to “specifically authorize NRAs to include non-rate economic terms.” NCBFAA at 11. A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members provided support for “including economic terms such as credit, minimum quantities, liquidated damages, etc.” Commenters at 1. Yusen Logistics requests to include non-rate economic terms. Yusen at 2-3. Mohawk, an NVOCC, has called for the inclusion of “economic terms, such as surcharges, credit terms, minimum volume commitments, demurrage, detention, per diem, free time, waiting time, penalties and/or incentives, service standards.” Mohawk states: “We often find that our clients are looking to incorporate more into our NRAs than the current regulations allow, therefore we are hopeful that these broader economic terms can be approved. In many cases these same clients do not want to ship under [an] NSA.” Id. at 2. Connor Global, another NVOCC, would like to see the inclusion of credit terms, surcharges, free time, waiting time, demurrage, detention, and per diem, minimum volume commitments, and service standards. Connor Global at 2. Serra, an NVOCC, requests inclusion of “any non-economic terms important to both the NVOCC and the shipper in the movement of the freight.” Serra at 1. Parker & Company Worldwide, a Freight Forwarder, states that it would like to see the same terms allowed as stated above, and remarked that looking up terms online in tariffs is burdensome. Parker at 1.

    A significant number of shipper commenters submitted nearly identical comments 5 that support allowing non-rate economic terms:

    5See Comments of Quadrant, Crescent, Geek Net, Connor Corp. (a different entity than Connor Global), and Bonney Forge. We refer to these comments as “Shipper Comments” throughout the document.

    We do not rely on published tariffs when deciding which NVOCC or freight forwarder to use. Furthermore, it is our preference to be able to negotiate these services, not just the rates, without being required to have a formal written contract that needs to be filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC.) . . . filing negotiated contracts/rates are a regulatory requirement that serves no real purpose but simply adds time and administrative costs to process.

    Shipper Comments.

    In addition to the types of terms specified above, Vanguard, an NVOCC, asks that the following terms be permitted: EDI services, Time Volume Rates, Liquidated Damages, Freight Forwarder Compensation, General Rate Increases (GRIs) or other pass-through charges from Carriers or Ports, Dispute Resolution, Rate or Service Amendments, Service Guarantees and/or Service Benchmarks, Rate Amendment Processes; etc. Vanguard at 2.

    NITL also supports expanding NRAs to include non-rate economic terms. NITL at 5. NITL states, “allowing NVOCCs and shippers to negotiate terms different than those set forth in the NVOCC's rules tariff will likely lead to more competitive and efficient shipping arrangements that meet the shipper's commercial requirements and the demands of the market.” Id. NYNJFFF&BA is also in favor of “allowing NRAs to include non-rate economic terms.” NYNJFFF&BA at 3-4.

    Dart, a tariff publishing vendor, stated that there should be a clear distinction between what additional terms could be included in an NRA compared to an NSA. Dart at 3. “There is no need to cross into this area by making the terms and conditions conflicting. Both can equally coexist and should be allowed to remain as viable instruments for use by the OTI in support of the shipping needs of its customer.” Id. FedEx, an NVOCC and freight forwarder, calls for the rescission of the prohibition against NRAs being allowed to include non-rate economic terms, and noted the importance of the ability to include other terms such as credit terms. FedEx at 2.

    2. Discussion

    The Commission agrees with the many commenters, shippers and NVOCCs alike, who are calling for the expansion of NRAs to include non-rate economic terms. While the Commission recognizes the argument made by Dart for a clear distinction between what additional terms may be included in an NRA compared to an NSA, the Commission nevertheless believes that giving more choice to parties, as the majority of commenters support, will lead to greater efficiency and more competitive shipping arrangements. Dart at 3.

    As stated above, commenters have called for a variety of new terms to be allowed in NRAs: Surcharges, credit terms, minimum volume commitments, demurrage, detention, per diem, free time, waiting time, penalties and/or incentives, service standards, EDI services, freight forwarder compensation, GRIs or other pass-through charges from Carriers or Ports, Dispute Resolution, and Rate Amendment Processes. The Commission recognizes the reduced administrative burden, greater efficiency, and increased competition that can be achieved by permitting the inclusion of such terms. While the Commission acknowledges the concern that allowing non-rate economic terms might increase the complexity of some NRAs, the Commission nevertheless favors removing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and restrictions to make way for more choice and options for NVOCCs and shippers. The Commission also believes that this increased flexibility for NRAs does not warrant a bright line distinction between NSAs and NRAs. Allowing the full range of non-rate economic terms in NRAs will clearly provide a benefit to members of the industry, and, therefore, the Commission is in favor of allowing for the inclusion of such terms in NRAs.6 Moreover, the broadening of the terms allowed in NRAs will not diminish the ability of NVOCCs and shippers that wish to form more complex agreements through an NSA. NSAs will remain a viable commercial pricing instrument for shippers and NVOCCs alike.

    6 We discuss surcharges and pass-through assessorial charges in the next section.

    C. Third-Party Pass-Through Assessorial Charges 1. Comments

    As discussed above, a number of commenters requested that the Commission permit NVOCCs to include GRIs and other pass through charges from carriers and ports in NRAs. In addition, FedEx requested the Commission to clarify the role of third-party pass-through assessorial charges. FedEx at 2. FedEx requests “that text clarifying the role of third-party pass-through assessorials, such as GRIs (General Rate Increases) be included in the regulations.” Id. FedEx states that “NVOCCs' ability to keep up with assessorial fees passed down by carriers is especially challenging. These rates sometimes change weekly in the most common lanes. Often ocean carriers announce the establishment and amount of an assessorial 30 days in advance, but the amount decreases over the 30 days, and is only finalized the day before the effective date.” Id. FedEx notes that “NVOCCs have very limited control over this process . . . assessorial costs are generally passed on to the shipper . . . [t]he NVOCC's process is labor-intensive.” Id. FedEx proposes that NRAs be allowed “to contain a clause stating that assessorial charges by third parties will be passed through to the customer” without mark up or being discounted. Id. FedEx also proposes “that NRAs also be permitted to contain a clause referring the user to the NVOCC's tariff, or other website location if/when tariffs are eliminated, for the assessorial amounts charged by third parties.” Id.

    Serra also requests allowance for “pass through charges to be referenced in an NRA and applied with full shipper knowledge and understanding.” Serra at 2. Serra states:

    Surcharges, notably GRls have become a wild card factor in final rate costs. Since regulations require ocean carriers to announce increases in surcharges 30 days in advance, the industry routinely files and provides notice. Then when the market cannot sustain all or some of the increase, the surcharges are cancelled or rolled to a future date. This is destabilizing for all industry participants and particularly difficult for NVOCCs to manage.

    Id.
    2. Discussion

    The Commission already permits NVOCCs to pass along third-party assessorial charges to shippers under NRAs when certain conditions are met. Specifically, assessorial charges and other surcharges must be applied in accordance with the rules tariff and the NRA must inform the shipper of their applicability.7 The Commission has not, however, traditionally allowed NRA rates to be increased via GRIs. Although part 532 does not expressly discuss assessorial charges, the preamble to the 2011 final rule establishing NRAs states:

    7 A rules tariff is defined as “a tariff or the portion of a tariff . . . containing the terms and conditions governing the charges, classifications, rules, regulations and practices of an NVOCC, but does not include a rate.” 46 CFR 532.3(c).

    As is the case with respect to tariff rates, the rate stated in an NRA may specify the inclusion of all charges (an “all-in” rate) or specify the inclusion of only certain accessorials or surcharges. Without specifying otherwise, the NRA would only replace the base ocean freight rate or published tariff rate. If the rate contained in an NRA is not an all-in rate, the NRA must specify which surcharges and accessorials from the rules tariff will apply. To the extent surcharges or accessorials published in the NVOCC's rules tariff will apply, the NRA must state that the amount of such surcharges and accessorials is fixed once the first shipment has been received by the NVOCC, until the last shipment is delivered. Rates stated in an NRA may not be increased via a GRI.

    76 FR at 11354.

    Since issuance of the 2011 final rule, however, the Commission has clarified through case law the treatment of pass-through assessorial charges for which no specific amount is fixed in either the NRA or the rules tariff. Specifically, in Gruenberg-Reisner v. Overseas Moving Specialists, Inc., 34 S.R.R. 613, 622-623 (FMC 2016), the Commission found that an NVOCC was entitled to collect pass-through assessorial charges without any markup, which it substantiated with invoices. The NVOCC described in its rules tariff the types of charges that were not included in the rate and provided that any of those charges assessed against the cargo would be for the account of the cargo, even if the NVOCC was responsible for the collection thereof. Id. The Commission found that Respondent was “entitled to payment for . . . destination terminal handling charges and the additional floor fee, and . . . local port fees, customs fees, parking permit, and elevator fee because these were reasonable accessorial charges that Respondent passed through to the Claimants without any markup.” Id. at 623. The Commission also stated that “assessing pass-through charges with no markup is a just and reasonable practice, in accordance with [section] 41102(c).” Id at 622.

    The Commission has determined to incorporate the interpretations in Gruenberg-Reisner, subject to a few clarifications, into part 532. Specifically, pass-through assessorial charges need not be fixed at the time of receipt of the first shipment, in light of the Commission's decision in Gruenberg-Reisner, which found it permissible for an NVOCC to collect pass-through assessorial charges that were not fixed upon receipt.

    In summary, the final rule adopts the following requirements. If the NRA rate is not an “all-in rate” the NRA must specify which surcharges or assessorial charges will apply by either including the specific additional charges in the NRA itself or referencing in the NRA the specific charges contained in the rules tariff. For applicable charges contained in the rules tariff, the charges and amounts for those charges (if the amounts are specified in the tariff) are fixed once the first shipment has been received by the NVOCC until the last shipment is delivered, subject to further amendment of the NRA by mutual agreement of the NVOCC and shipper. For pass-through charges and ocean carrier GRIs for which the NRA or rules tariff does not include a specified amount, the NVOCC may invoice the shipper for only those charges the NVOCC actually incurs, with no markup. The Commission is removing the prohibition on the pass-through of ocean carrier GRIs in order to increase efficiency and flexibility within the NRA framework.

    D. Authorize Amendments and Shipper Acceptance Upon Booking 1. Comments

    A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members proposed that the Commission authorize amendments to NRAs and allow acceptance and booking of cargo “to suffice as acceptance of the rate, in lieu of a written agreement.” NCBFAA/FCBF Member Comments at 1. Yusen also favors authorizing amendments and believes that “acceptance of the NRA rate quote by either signing the document or otherwise having a written agreement” is “an irrelevant and repetitive requirement” Yusen at 2. Connor Global asks for flexibility in amending NRAs and acceptance upon booking. Connor Global at 2. Mohawk supports allowing amendments and acceptance upon booking. Mohawk at 2. Serra argues that allowing NRAs “to be amended would cut down on the re-issuance of new NRAs necessitated by the dynamic shipping environment.” Serra at 2. Serra believes that “this should extend even to freight that has been received.” Id. Serra asks the Commission “to recognize that tendering or booking of cargo constitutes acceptance of the rate and terms quoted in an NRA.” Id. Thunderbolt also believes tender of the cargo by the shipper to the OTI should constitute acceptance of an NRA. Thunderbolt at 2. Sefco favors “allowing the act of booking cargo to be considered acceptance of a rate under the terms of an NRA.” Sefco at 3. Sefco argues that allowing modification and acceptance by booking “is more in tune with market conditions and best business practices.” Sefco at 2. NCBFAA states that “modification of NRAs eliminates an unnecessary restriction, provides flexibility in a fluid marketplace, and allows [NVOCCs] to be responsive to their customers.” NCBFAA at 7.

    Livingston supports the proposal “to eliminate [§ 532.5(e)] and to expand the NRA exemption in 46 CFR part 532 to allow for modification of NRAs at any time upon mutual agreement between an NVOCC and a shipper.” Livingston at 3. “Livingston also supports the further change proposed by the Commission to modify [§ 532.5(c)] to allow a booking request made pursuant to an NRA to constitute the required shipper acceptance of such NRA.” Id. CaroTrans concurs. CaroTrans at 3. Shipco also concurs. Shipco at 2-3.

    Several commenters disagreed, however, with the Commission's proposal to provide specific language for the notice to shippers that booking would constitute acceptance of the NRA terms. Livingston argues that “requiring particular wording on an NRA regarding whether booking constitutes acceptance adds regulatory burden instead of removing it.” Id. Shipco states that “requiring specific wording would merely raise the risk of noncompliance for NVOCCs without providing any real benefit to shippers.” Shipco at 2-3.

    NYNJFFF&BA goes even further, arguing that “the requirement for a `prominent written notice' be removed and the wording of any such notice be left to the NVOCC to determine what works best for their system of communication.” NYNJFFF&BA at 2. NYNJFFF&BA states that “it is an excessive formulaic governmental requirement with no real business/regulatory/legal purpose to insist that an NRA rate offer is not accepted unless there is a prominent notice that a booking is an acceptance of the NRA.” Id. at 3. NYNJFFF&BA are also in “favor of allowing NRAs to be amended after the receipt of the initial shipment.” Id. In addition, they favor allowing the shipper to agree in writing “to accept a change in the NRA terms after the carrier or its agent has received the cargo.” Id.

    CJ International, a freight forwarder and customs broker, states:

    We believe that the Commission should eliminate the requirement that the shipper must indicate acceptance of the NRA rate by signing the document or memorializing acceptance in some other written format. Though we do request our clients indicate their approval by either signing our rate quote or by sending confirmation back via email, in many cases they simply tender cargo as acceptance of the NRA rate with the understanding that the agreed NRA rate will apply.

    CJ International at 1.

    Dart cautions that NRA amendments should be denoted with a date and time stamp, an amendment number, and a written response before the cargo is accepted.” Dart at 3. Specifically, Dart states:

    At the very least, a booking would have to be supported by a written acceptance of the NRA, contain the NRA number and specifically refer to the appropriate amendment number. If not, issues will arise with parties working on different “versions”, only to find out later the final costs were not all specifically agreed to as supported by the many comments who noted the fluid and changing conditions of ocean shipments. Things can change hourly in some cases and the requirement of written acceptance and specific language compelling the NRA number and subsequent amendment number should be included to avoid confusion and needless disputes that could end up in court.

    Id.

    NITL supports allowing amendments to NRAs and shipper acceptance upon booking, but with reservations. NITL at 6-7. NITL supports providing parties an ability to amend an NRA at any time but only to the extent that the amendment is based on a mutual agreement between the parties that is not in the form of the NVOCC's tariff, bill of lading or other shipping document not subject to mutual negotiation.” NITL at 6. NITL believes “[t]he mutual agreement could be in the form of an informal writing such as an email or other electronic exchange which reflects the mutuality of the agreement.” Id. at 6.

    NITL believes that the proposal to allow acceptance of an NRA through the act of booking in addition to the current method of acceptance which allows acceptance through memorialization in an email or writing, has the potential to create confusion over the enforceability of an NRA. Id. at 6. NITL believes this could also cause confusion with “the ability of a shipper to cancel a booking if commercial circumstances change prior to the tender of the cargo.” Id. NITL, therefore, “with respect to a shipper's “acceptance” of an NRA, the League prefers the current regulations which require a “meeting of the minds” between the parties to be reflected in a formal or informal writing, such as an email.” Id. at 6. Nevertheless, NITL recommends that “if the FMC were still to decide to provide greater flexibility for “acceptance” of NRAs,” then “acceptance of the NRA should be tied to the shipper's tender of the cargo,” as acceptance through tendering of cargo “is more consistent with existing transportation practices and broader commercial contract principles.” Id. at 7. “NITL strongly supports the Commission's proposed requirement that each NVOCC seeking to recognize the alternate form of acceptance must incorporate a prominent written notice to that effect on each applicable NRA or amendment to avoid any risk of surprise and potential disputes.” Id. at 7. RBH, a shipper, states that all that should be necessary for acceptance of an NRA is “the preparation of a good quotation and acceptance of the charges associated with a shipment.” RBH at 1.

    Vanguard, who favors requiring prominent written notice, suggested the following language: “Your booking and/or tendering of cargo is considered acceptance of the NRA rates and terms that were negotiated with you for the shipment of the cargo.” Vanguard at 2. Vanguard also believes that NRAs should be allowed “to be amended at any time before, upon or after cargo receipt,” as well as “extended, expired, or cancelled.” Id. at 2. Shipco, however, “does not believe that the Commission should require any particular wording on an NRA regarding whether booking constitutes acceptance.” Shipco at 3. CaroTrans also does not believe any specific wording should be required to constitute acceptance. CaroTrans at 3. “Requiring specific wording would merely raise the risk of noncompliance for NVOCCs without providing any real benefit to shippers.” Id. at 4. Serra is not of the opinion “that it is necessary for an NVOCC to have a prominent notice that booking is considered an acceptance of the NRA.” Serra at 2. Serra also does not “believe that the form and wording of such a notice should be a matter worthy of government interest and regulation.” Id.

    ABS Consulting stated: “Further providing the shippers['] acceptance by making a booking with the NVOCC also aligns nicely with other shipping modes and how shippers and forwarders (carriers) interact today.” ABS at 1. “I would recommend that the FMC go even one step further, to allowing the NVOCC to receive the cargo prior to the acceptance (booking) of the cargo by the customer.” Id. Asia Shipping also states that they “would recommend that the FMC allow[] the NVOCC to receive the cargo prior to the acceptance (booking) of the cargo by the customer.” Asia at 2.

    FedEx states that “[a]llowing acceptance to be demonstrated by the shipper's booking with the NVOCC after receipt of the NRA (with explanatory text) conforms with the current shipping environment.” FedEx at 2. FedEx, moreover, states that “[a]llowing NVOCCs and shippers to modify existing NRAs with mutual agreement, instead of establishing a new NRA, reduces bureaucracy.” Id.

    DJR Logistics states that “the lifting of the requirement of having our customers formally agree to the NRA and allow for the acceptance of a booking of cargo to confirm their agreement to be in the interest of the shipping public.” DJR at 1. DJR also believes NRAs should be allowed to be amended “as market conditions change.” Id. “The ability to adjust the NRA as the market conditions change would eliminate[] hours of work and would benefit the Shipping Public by allowing us to reduce the rate being offered earlier than when the NRA expires under the current system.” Id.

    2. Discussion

    The Commission recognized in the NPRM that NVOCCs and their customers “should not be compelled to create a new NRA in every instance simply because the rules do not currently provide for amendment.” 82 FR at 56786. The Commission has also acknowledged that it is appropriate to “permit NRAs to be extended or amended upon acceptance or agreement by the shipper customer.” Id. Acknowledging the utility of acceptance by booking, the Commission, furthermore, requested input on the practice—as well as whether prominent written notice should be required. The Commission also sought input on whether or not specific wording should be required. Id.

    There were no commenters who opposed allowing amendments. The Commission recognizes that the smaller cargo volume of NRAs as well as the short term and transactional nature of NRAs merit greater flexibility and the benefits of allowing amendments to NRAs are recognized by the industry and the Commission alike. Some commenters, like Serra and NYNJFFF&BA, disagreed with the proposal to limit the applicability of NRA amendments to prospective shipments and urged the Commission to allow for “a change in the NRA terms after the carrier or its agent has received the cargo.” NYNJFFF&BA at 3. The Commission is denying this request and moving forward with the proposed language limiting amendments to prospective shipments. Allowing such “retroactive” amendments would be a drastic departure from the current regulatory regime governing the ocean transportation of goods. No matter the specific means of contracting for such services, i.e., tariff, service contract, NSA, or NRA, the Commission has consistently limited the applicability of amendments to prospective shipments, and the commenters have not presented a compelling reason to make such a dramatic change. NRAs, in particular, may be established and amended with little formality. Thus, retroactive amendments in the NRA context present an increased risk of error and disagreement over the applicable terms. In addition, the Commission believes that if the NVOCC already has the cargo at the time of the amendment, there would be an imbalance in bargaining power between the NVOCC and shipper and an increased possibility that a shipper would feel pressured to submit to amended terms with which they might not otherwise agree. In order to avoid this situation and ensure that any amendments truly reflect mutual agreement by the parties, the applicability of amendments is limited to prospective shipments.

    The process for the parties reaching agreement for NRAs and amendments presents another area of disagreement. The majority of commenters support acceptance upon booking with no writing required. NITL and Dart both argue, however, that having a formal writing will help to avoid confusion.

    The Commission does not share NITL's concerns and, under the final rule, an NRA may become binding and enforceable when the terms of an NRA are agreed to by both NRA shipper and NVOCC. The Commission is adding language to § 532.5 to clarify this point. The shipper is considered to have agreed to the terms of the NRA when: (1) The shipper provides the NVOCC with a signed agreement; (2) sends the NVOCC written communication indicating agreement to the NRA terms; or (3) books a shipment after receiving prominent notice that booking constitutes acceptance.

    The Commission believes that prominent written notice, with fixed language stating that a booking constitutes acceptance, will negate the potential confusion about which Dart is concerned. The requirement that Dart calls for, specifically that a booking would need written acceptance, with the NRA number and an amendment number, would be overly burdensome for both shippers and NVOCCs.

    The Commission also recognizes the request of ABS Consulting and Asia to allow “the NVOCC to receive the cargo prior to the acceptance (booking) of the cargo by the customer.” The Commission believes, however, that to allow tender prior to agreement would create the potential for an unfair environment for shippers and an increase in transactional confusion. In a situation where an NVOCC is sending multiple rate quotes during a short period of time, allowing tender to constitute shipper acceptance would substantially increase the likelihood of disagreement over which quoted terms constitute the NRA. In order to avoid such disputes, the Commission is retaining the requirement that the NRA be agreed to by both the shipper and NVOCC prior to the receipt of cargo by the NVOCC and including “prior to the receipt of cargo” in the text of § 532.5(c).

    Prominent written notice will alert shippers that booking will constitute acceptance of the NRA and avoid confusion between shippers and NVOCCs. Though Serra and NYNJFFF&BA argue against the requirement of prominent written notice, the Commission believes without such notice the potential for confusion and disputes is too high. A number of commenters, including Serra, CaroTrans, NYNJFFF&BA, and Shipco also argue against requiring specific fixed language in the prominent written notice. The requirement for specific language, they argue, serves no purpose and raises the risk of noncompliance. The Commission disagrees with these contentions. Without specific language, the burden and risk of noncompliance for NVOCCs would increase, as they would be required to craft statements that qualify as “prominent written notice” an arguably ambiguous standard. In contrast, specific fixed language provides necessary clarity and certainty.

    As discussed, above, Vanguard suggested the following alternative language for the prominent written notice: “Your booking and/or tendering of cargo is considered acceptance of the NRA rates and terms that were negotiated with you for the shipment of the cargo.” The Commission believes that revising the proposed notice language to incorporate certain aspects of Vanguard's suggested language will improve the language. In particular, the Commission's proposed language noted that the shipper may agree to the NRA by booking. This could be read as allowing the shipper to determine whether booking constitutes acceptance and lead to confusion. Vanguard's suggested language, on the other hand, makes clear the booking will be considered acceptance of the NRA. Accordingly, this final rule adopts the following notice language: “THE SHIPPER'S BOOKING OF CARGO AFTER RECEIVING THE TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE RATES AND TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT.” 8 We also view the language “acceptance of the NRA rates and terms that were negotiated with you for the shipment of the cargo,” as suggesting that the required language be included somewhere other than the NRA terms transmitted to the shipper. To ensure that the shipper is aware of this notice, the final rule retains the proposed rule's requirement that the notice be included in the NRA terms, and includes clarifying language to that effect.

    8 The proposed rule required that this notice be in bold or uppercase letters. To help ensure that shippers see the notice, the final rule requires that the notice be in bold and uppercase letters.

    E. Elimination of all Tariff Publishing Requirements 1. Comments

    A number of individual NCBFAA/FCBF members submitted the same request that the Commission “entirely exempt NVOCCs from publishing negotiated rate arrangements (NRAs) and filing requirements.” NCBFAA/FCBF Member Comments at 1. Parker, a freight forwarder, argues that tariff filing has become outdated. Parker at 1. Parker states that “as a customer we never look at the tariffs we rely on the written quotations.” Id. Mohawk “strongly urge[s] the Commission to eliminate the need for NVOCCs to file Rate Tariffs.” Mohawk at 3. Mohawk states that “no shippers ever shop for rates in any of the remaining Rate Tariffs. Instead they ask for quotes via email or through web-based rate sourcing that have long ago stopped the need to look elsewhere. Tariffs are an archaic throwback to a time long gone . . . .” Id.

    Thunderbolt supports the “elimination of the need for NVOCC's to file Rate Tariffs.” Thunderbolt at 3. RBH states “the publishing of tariffs is an outdated way of providing information that is no longer used and adds to additional expenses for our carriers that could be better served by offering more competitive rates without this clerical burden.” RBH at 1. Vanguard states that “tariffs are not used by shippers,” and requests that the Commission, “remove the requirement to provide public access to shippers to NVOCC Rules tariff.” Vanguard at 2. Serra has asked the Commission to “seriously study the possibility of using its exemption authority to remove the tariff publishing requirements for NVOCCs.” Serra at 2. Serra states that “the removal of the requirement to publish tariffs will not be detrimental to the shipping public and actually lead to a reduction in costs that will assist economic growth.” Id. Serra supports “the elimination of tariff publishing regulations both for OTI NVOCCs and ocean common carriers as they are simply not used and thus provide no benefit to the shipping public.” Id. at 3. NYNJFFF&BA supports “removal of OTI NVOCCs Tariff and Tariff Publishing Requirements.” NYNJFFF&BA at 5.

    Lastly, Connor Global also “urges the Commission to eliminate the requirement for NVOCCs to file rate tariffs.” Connor Global at 3. Connor Global argues that “they are an archaic method of pursuing rates when in today's market rates are requested by email or accessed via web portals.” Id. at 3. Connor Global also argues that it is a burden to file tariffs, nobody accesses them, and they provide no benefit. Id. at 3.

    2. Discussion

    The Commission has considered the request to eliminate all tariff publishing requirements. Clearly a number of commenters have argued that rate tariffs are archaic and not utilized.

    As an initial matter, the Commission did not propose or consider the elimination of all tariff filing requirements for NVOCCs in the NPRM and such a change is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, data from the Commission's Bureau of Trade and Analysis demonstrates that 71 percent of NVOCCs still publish tariff rates exclusively. With such widespread use, the Commission does not believe that rate tariffs are outdated, not used, or of no benefit. Rate tariffs provide shippers access to ocean freight shipping in a non-discriminatory way. Rate tariffs are a useful tool for the shipping public and their demise would not be consistent with the Commission's approach to enhancing flexibility and choice.

    F. Summary of Post Final Rule NSA/NRA Differences

    To summarize the key differences between NSAs and NRAs in light of the changes made by this final rule, the Commission has prepared the following table:

    NSA NRA Rates and Terms • Must include terms listed in 46 CFR 531.6(a)
  • • May include any other terms.
  • • Must include the rate and any applicable non-rate economic terms.
  • • Must include any applicable surcharges and assessorial charges not included in the rate, including pass-through charges.
  • Acceptance • Must be signed by NVOCC and shipper Shipper may accept terms by:
  • • Signing agreement.
  • • Communicating acceptance by writing, including by email.
  • • Booking a shipment after receipt of NRA terms, if NVOCC has included required notice.
  • Enforceability • Binding upon signature of the parties • Binding upon shipper: (1) Providing NVOCC with signed agreement; (2) sending written communication accepting NRA terms; or (3) booking shipment after receiving prominent notice. Filing • No filing requirement • No filing requirement. Publication • No publication requirement • No publication requirement.
    V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Congressional Review Act

    The rule is not a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The rule will not result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency promulgates a final rule after being required to publish a proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of the rule on small entities, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 604-605. The Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Commission recognizes that the majority of businesses affected by these rules qualify as small entities under the guidelines of the Small Business Administration. The rule as to part 531 (NSAs) poses no economic detriment to small businesses. In this regard, the rule pertains to an NSA entered into between a NVOCC and a shipper, which is an optional pricing arrangement that benefits the shipping public and relieves NVOCCs from the burden of the statutory tariff filing requirements in 46 U.S.C. 40501. In that the rule eliminates the requirements that NVOCCs file NSAs with the Commission and publish essential terms of such NSAs, the regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NSAs is reduced. The rule as to part 532 (NRAs) establishes an optional method for NVOCCs to amend an NRA, permits additional terms to be included in NRAs, and expands the ways a shipper may accept the terms of an NRA or amendment thereto, to be used at the NVOCC's discretion. In that the rule eliminates the prohibition on amendments to NRAs after an initial shipment is received by the carrier and permits NVOCCs to more flexibly create and amend such NRAs, the regulatory burden on NVOCCs utilizing NRAs is reduced.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    Upon completion of an environmental assessment, the Commission issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in conjunction with the NPRM, determining that this rulemaking would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and that preparation of an environmental impact statement was not required. No petitions for review were filed, and the FONSI became final on December 10, 2017. The FONSI and environmental assessment are available for inspection at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmc.gov/17-10, and at the Docket Activity Library at 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573, between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: (202) 523-5725.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets the applicable standards in E.O. 12988 titled, “Civil Justice Reform,” to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. The information collection requirements for part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, and Part 532 NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements are currently authorized under OMB Control Numbers 3072-0070: 46 CFR part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, and 3072-0071: 46 CFR part 532—NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements, respectively. In compliance with the PRA, the Commission submitted the proposed revised information collections to the Office of Management and Budget. Notice of the revised information collections was published in the NRPM and public comments were invited. 82 FR at 56781, 56787. Comments received regarding the proposed changes, as well as the Commission's responses, are addressed above. No comments specifically addressed the revised information collections in parts 531 and 532.

    As discussed above, the final rule eliminates the requirement that NVOCCs file NSAs with the Commission and the requirement that NVOCCs publish the essential terms of NSAs. Public burden for the collection of information pursuant to part 531, NVOCC Service Arrangements, as revised, would comprise 79 likely respondents and an estimated 3,328 annual instances. The final rule will significantly reduce the burden estimate from 831 hours to 127 hours, a difference of 704 hours.

    The final rule also: (1) Permits NRAs to be modified after the receipt of the initial shipment by the NVOCC; (2) permits NVOCCs to incorporate non-rate economic terms; (3) permits shipper acceptance of the NRA or amendment by booking a shipment thereunder, subject to the NVOCC incorporating in each NRA or amendment a prominent written notice that booking constitutes acceptance, the text of which is specified in part 532. Accordingly, the final rule will result in no changes to the information collection for part 532, NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

    List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 531

    Freight, Maritime carriers, Report and recordkeeping requirements.

    46 CFR Part 532

    Exports, Non-vessel-operating common carriers, Ocean transportation intermediaries.

    For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR parts 531 and 532 as follows:

    PART 531—NVOCC SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 40103.

    2. Revise § 531.1 to read as follows:
    § 531.1 Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to facilitate NVOCC Service Arrangements (“NSAs”) as they are exempt from the otherwise applicable provisions of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“the Act”).

    3. Revise § 531.3 to read as follows:
    § 531.3 Definitions.

    When used in this part:

    (a) Act means the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998;

    (b) Affiliate means two or more entities which are under common ownership or control by reason of being parent and subsidiary or entities associated with, under common control with, or otherwise related to each other through common stock ownership or common directors or officers.

    (c) Amendment means any change to an NSA which has prospective effect and which is mutually agreed upon by all parties to the NSA.

    (d) Commission or FMC means the Federal Maritime Commission.

    (e) Common carrier means a person holding itself out to the general public to provide transportation by water of passengers or cargo between the United States and a foreign country for compensation that:

    (1) Assumes responsibility for the transportation from the port or point of receipt to the port or point of destination; and

    (2) Utilizes, for all or part of that transportation, a vessel operating on the high seas or the Great Lakes between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country, except that the term does not include a common carrier engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, or chemical parcel tanker, or by a vessel when primarily engaged in the carriage of perishable agricultural commodities:

    (i) If the common carrier and the owner of those commodities are wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a person primarily engaged in the marketing and distribution of those commodities and

    (ii) Only with respect to those commodities.

    (f) Effective date means the date upon which an NSA or amendment is scheduled to go into effect by the parties to the NSA. An NSA or amendment becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on the beginning of the effective date. The effective date cannot be prior to the date of the NSA or amendment.

    (g) Expiration date means the last day after which the entire NSA is no longer in effect.

    (h) NSA shipper means a cargo owner, the person for whose account the ocean transportation is provided, the person to whom delivery is to be made, a shippers' association, or an ocean transportation intermediary, as defined in section 3(17)(B) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 40102(16)), that accepts responsibility for payment of all applicable charges under the NSA.

    (i) NVOCC Service Arrangement (“NSA”) means a written contract, other than a bill of lading or receipt, between one or more NSA shippers and an individual NVOCC or two or more affiliated NVOCCs, in which the NSA shipper makes a commitment to provide a certain minimum quantity or portion of its cargo or freight revenue over a fixed time period, and the NVOCC commits to a certain rate or rate schedule and a defined service level. The NSA may also specify provisions in the event of nonperformance on the part of any party.

    (j) Rules tariff means a tariff or the portion of a tariff, as defined by 46 CFR 520.2, containing the terms and conditions governing the charges, classifications, rules, regulations and practices of an NVOCC, but does not include a rate.

    4. Revise § 531.4 to read as follows:
    § 531.4 NVOCC rules tariff.

    (a) Before entering into NSAs under this part, an NVOCC must provide electronic access to its rules tariffs to the public free of charge.

    (b) An NVOCC wishing to invoke an exemption pursuant to this part must indicate that intention to the Commission and the public by a prominent notice in its rules tariff.

    § 531.5 [Removed and Reserved]
    5. Remove and reserve § 531.5 Subpart B—Requirements 6. Revise the subpart B heading to read as set forth above. 7. Amend § 531.6 by: a. Removing paragraphs (a), (f), and (g): b. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs (a) through (d), respectively; c. Revising the introductory text of newly redesignated paragraph (a); d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (c)(1) and adding paragraph (c)(5); e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 531.6 NVOCC Service Arrangements.

    (a) Every NSA shall include the complete terms of the NSA including, but not limited to, the following:

    (c) * * *

    (1) For service pursuant to an NSA, no NVOCC may, either alone or in conjunction with any other person, directly or indirectly, provide service in the liner trade that is not in accordance with the rates, charges, classifications, rules and practices contained in an NSA.

    (5) Except for the carrier party's rules tariff, the requirement in 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)-(c) that the NVOCC include its rates in a tariff open to public inspection in an automated tariff system and the Commission's corresponding regulations at 46 CFR part 520 shall not apply.

    (d) Format requirements. Every NSA shall include:

    (1) A unique NSA number of more than one (1) but less than ten (10) alphanumeric characters in length (“NSA Number”); and

    (2) A consecutively numbered amendment number no more than three digits in length, with initial NSAs using “0” (“Amendment number”).

    § 531.7 [Removed and Reserved]
    8. Remove and reserve § 531.7 9. Revise § 531.8 to read as follows:
    § 531.8 Amendment.

    (a) NSAs may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties.

    (b) Where feasible, NSAs should be amended by amending only the affected specific term(s) or subterms.

    (c) Each time any part of an NSA is amended, a consecutive amendment number (up to three digits), beginning with the number “1” shall be assigned.

    (d) Each time any part of an NSA is amended, the “Effective Date” will be the date of the amendment or a future date agreed to by the parties.

    Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved] 10. Remove and reserve subpart C, consisting of § 531.9.
    § 531.10 [Amended].
    11. Amend § 531.10 by removing paragraphs (c) and (d). 12. Revise § 531.11 to read as follows:
    § 531.11 Implementation.

    Generally. Performance under an NSA or amendment thereto may not begin before the day it is effective.

    13. Revise § 531.99 to read as follows:
    § 531.99 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The Commission has received OMB approval for this collection of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. In accordance with that Act, agencies are required to display a currently valid control number. The valid control number for this collection of information is 3072-0070.

    Appendix A to Part 531 [Removed] 14. Remove Appendix A to part 531. PART 532—NVOCC NEGOTIATED RATE ARRANGEMENTS 15. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as: Authority:

    46 U.S.C. 40103.

    16. Amend § 532.3 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 532.3 Definitions.

    (a) “NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangement” or “NRA” means a written and binding arrangement between an NRA shipper and an eligible NVOCC to provide specific transportation service for a stated cargo quantity, from origin to destination, on and after receipt of the cargo by the NVOCC. For purposes of this part, “receipt of cargo by the NVOCC” includes receipt by the NVOCC's agent, or the originating carrier in the case of through transportation.

    17. Revise § 532.5 to read as follows:
    § 532.5 Requirements for NVOCC negotiated rate arrangements.

    In order to qualify for the exemptions to the general rate publication requirement as set forth in § 532.2, an NRA must meet the following requirements:

    (a) Writing. The NRA must be in writing.

    (b) Parties. The NRA must contain the names of the parties and the names of the representatives agreeing to the NRA.

    (c) Agreement. The terms of the NRA must be agreed to by both NRA shipper and NVOCC, prior to receipt of cargo by the NVOCC. The shipper is considered to have agreed to the terms of the NRA if the shipper:

    (1) Provides the NVOCC with a signed agreement;

    (2) Sends the NVOCC a written communication, including an email, indicating acceptance of the NRA terms; or

    (3) Books a shipment after receiving the NRA terms from the NVOCC, if the NVOCC incorporates in the NRA terms the following text in bold font and all uppercase letters: “THE SHIPPER'S BOOKING OF CARGO AFTER RECEIVING THE TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE RATES AND TERMS OF THIS NRA OR NRA AMENDMENT.”

    (d) Rates and terms—(1) General. The NRA must clearly specify the rate and terms, as well as the shipment or shipments to which such rate will apply.

    (2) Surcharges, assessorial charges, and GRIs. (i) If the rate is not an “all-in rate,” the NRA must specify whether additional surcharges, additional assessorial charges, or ocean common carrier general rate increases (“GRIs”) will apply.

    (ii) The NRA may list the additional surcharges or assessorial charges, including pass-through charges, or reference specific surcharges or assessorial charges in the NVOCC's rules tariff.

    (iii) If the additional surcharges or assessorial charges are included in the NVOCC's rules tariff, those additional surcharges or assessorial charges and the corresponding amounts specified in the rules tariff must be fixed once the first shipment has been received by the NVOCC until the last shipment is delivered, subject to an amendment of the NRA.

    (iv) For any pass-through charge for which a specific amount is not included in the NRA or the rules tariff, the NVOCC may only invoice the shipper for charges the NVOCC incurs, with no markup.

    (3) Non-rate economic terms. The NRA may include non-rate economic terms.

    (e) Amendment. The NRA may be amended after the time the initial shipment is received by the NVOCC, but such changes may only apply prospectively to shipments not yet received by the NVOCC.

    By the Commission.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15496 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 61 [WC Docket Nos. 16-143, 05-25, GN Docket No. 13-5 and RM-10593; FCC 17-43] Business Data Services in an Internet Protocol Environment; Technology Transitions; Special Access for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation Petition for Rulemaking To Reform Regulation of Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate Special Access Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, an information collection associated with the Commission's Business Data Services Report and Order, FCC 17-43, which, among other things, required that by August 1, 2020, price cap incumbent LECs must remove all business data services that are no longer subject to price cap regulation from their interstate tariffs. The Order also required that, by the same deadline, competitive LECs must remove all business data services from their interstate tariffs. This document is consistent with the Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of these rules.

    DATES:

    The amendments to 47 CFR 61.201 and 61.203, published at June 2, 2017, 82 FR 25660, are effective July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Kehoe, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7122, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on June 19, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirement relating to sections 61.201 and 61.203 of the Commission's rules, as contained in the Commission's Business Data Services Report and Order, FCC 17-43, published at 82 FR 25660, June 2, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0400, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

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

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 19, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR part 61. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0298.

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

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

    OMB Approval Date: June 19, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2021.

    Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than the Tariff Review Plan).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 5,543 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30-50 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection (IC) is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 195,890 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,369,000.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Privacy Act: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On April 20, 2017, the Commission adopted the Business Data Services Report and Order, FCC 17-43, which establishes a new regulatory framework for business data services. Under this framework, price cap incumbent LECs are no longer subject to price cap regulation of their: (a) packet-based business data services; (b) time-division multiplexing (TDM) transport business data services; (c) TDM business data services with bandwidth in excess of a DS3; and (d) DS1 and DS3 end user channel terminations, and other lower-bandwidth TDM business data services, to the extent a price cap incumbent LEC provides them in counties deemed competitive under the Commission's competitive market test or in counties for which the price cap incumbent LEC had obtained Phase II pricing flexibility under the Commission's prior regulatory regime. The Business Data Services Report and Order required that, within 36 months of its effective date (i.e., by August 1, 2020), price cap incumbent LECs must remove all business data services that are no longer subject to price cap regulation from their interstate tariffs. The Order also required that, by that same deadline, competitive LECs must remove all business data services from their interstate tariffs.

    The information collected through the carriers' tariffs is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether services offered are just and reasonable, as the Act requires. The tariffs and any supporting documentation are examined in order to determine if the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15652 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CC Docket No. 91-281; FCC 17-132] Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with rules adopted in the Commission's document Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID, Final Order (Final Order). This document is consistent with the Final Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules.

    DATES:

    The amendments to 47 CFR 64.1601(d)(4)(ii) and (f), published at 82 FR 56909, December 1, 2017, are effective August 22, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Smith, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (717) 338-2797, or email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on July 6, 2018, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Final Order, FCC 17-132, published at 82 FR 56909, December 1, 2017. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1255. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1255, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the internet if you send them to [email protected].

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on July 6, 2018, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at § 64.1601(d)(4)(ii) and (f).

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

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1255.

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

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1255.

    OMB Approval Date: July 6, 2018.

    OMB Expiration Date: July 31, 2021.

    Title: Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number Identification Service—Caller ID, CC Docket No. 91-281.

    Form Number: N/A. Type of Review: New collection. Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 46,291 respondents; 1,705 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.083 hours (5 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: Monthly and on-going reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefit. The statutory authority for the information collection requirements is found at sections 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201(b) and section 222, 47 U.S.C. 222. The Commission's implementing rules are codified at 47 CFR 64.1600-64.1601.

    Total Annual Burden: 142 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information from individuals.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission amended rules requiring that carriers honor privacy requests to state that § 64.1601(b) of the Commission's rules shall not apply when calling party number (CPN) delivery is made in connection with a threatening call. Upon report of such a threatening call by law enforcement on behalf of the threatened party, the carrier will provide any CPN of the calling party to law enforcement and, as directed by law enforcement, to security personnel for the called party for the purpose of identifying the party responsible for the threatening call. Carriers now have a recordkeeping requirement in order to quickly provide law enforcement with information relating to threatening calls.

    The Commission also amended rules to allow non-public emergency services to receive the CPN of all incoming calls from blocked numbers requesting assistance. The Commission believes amending its rules to allow non-public emergency services access to blocked Caller ID promotes the public interest by ensuring timely provision of emergency services without undermining any countervailing privacy interests. Carriers now have a recordkeeping requirement in order to provide emergency service providers with the information they need to assist callers.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15654 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    83 141 Monday, July 23, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 3, 61, 63, and 65 [Docket No.: FAA-2018-0656; Notice No. 18-03] RIN 2120-AL04 Security Threat Disqualification Update AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA proposes to amend and consolidate the security threat disqualification regulations. This proposed rule would outline the FAA actions on certificates or applications for certificates when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) notifies the FAA that an individual poses a security threat.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0656 using any of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions concerning this action, contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    This rulemaking is promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

    This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111, which requires the Administrator to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke any certificate or any part of a certificate issued under Title 49 when the TSA notifies the FAA that the holder of the certificate poses or is suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.

    Additionally, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires that TSA coordinate with the Administrator of the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened before being certificated by the FAA. Thus, the FAA will not issue a certificate to screened individuals identified by TSA as security threats.

    I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This proposed rulemaking would amend and consolidate the current FAA security threat disqualification regulations found in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14 into part 3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Those regulations provide, in sum, that no person is eligible to hold a certificate, rating, or authorization issued under each of those parts when the TSA notifies the FAA in writing of an adverse security threat determination.

    Since 2004, the FAA has not applied these regulations to United States (U.S.), citizens or resident aliens, instead relying on the statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111, Public Law 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003), and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), Public Law 108-458 (Dec. 17, 2004), enacted after the FAA issued its security threat disqualification regulations. Section 46111 directs the FAA to take action against “any part of a certificate” issued under Title 49 in response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also provides a hearing and appeal process for U.S. citizens. Section 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) provides that individuals will be screened against the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. This proposed rule is necessary to conform the above-cited FAA regulations to 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) and to clarify the FAA's process for preventing the issuance of certificates to applicants that the TSA finds to be security threats.

    Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the proposed security threat regulations describe the actions the FAA will take on a certificate or certificate application when it receives notification from the TSA that an individual is a security threat. As with current practice under the statute, the FAA would not issue a certificate or any part of a certificate when the TSA has notified the FAA in writing that the individual poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety. For certificates already issued, the FAA would amend, modify, suspend, or revoke any FAA-issued certificate or part of such certificate upon written notification from the TSA that the certificate holder poses, or is suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.1

    1 The TSA directs what specific action the FAA should take on the certificate and includes that information in the letter notifying the FAA of the security threat determination.

    B. Costs and Benefits

    This rule is not expected to impose anything other than minimal cost, if any. The proposed regulations would merely codify existing, statutorily-mandated procedures that FAA has been following since 2004. This proposed rule, therefore, would not have significant economic impact within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT's policies and procedures.

    II. Background A. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Security Threat Disqualification

    In response to the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, the FAA issued the current security threat disqualification regulations to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons, and property within the United States. Specifically, in 2003, the FAA, in consultation with the TSA, determined that security threat disqualification regulations were necessary to minimize security threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent possible. The FAA, the TSA, and other federal security agencies were concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out further terrorist acts in the United States. Accordingly, the FAA issued a final rule, Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24, 2003), providing that an individual determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman certification and thus cannot not hold an FAA-issued airman certificate. The FAA took this action because a person who poses a security threat should not be in a position that could be used to take actions that are contrary to civil aviation security and, therefore, safety in air commerce. These security threat disqualification regulations are found in §§ 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14.

    Subsequent to the issuance of the current FAA security threat disqualification regulations, the President signed into law 49 U.S.C. 46111 2 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).3 Section 46111 requires the FAA to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke certificates or any part of a certificate issued under Title 49, when the TSA informs the FAA that the holder “poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.” Under section 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the TSA and the FAA must work together to “ensure that individuals are screened . . . before being certificated by the [FAA].” After the passage of these statutes, the FAA did not update its regulations, though it did publish in the Federal Register its disposition of comments to the 2003 final rule which noted that if additional rulemaking was necessary to reflect the statutory requirements of 46111, the FAA would utilize notice and comment rulemaking.4 The FAA's Federal Register document also summarized two D.C. Circuit cases from 2004 that sought judicial review of the FAA and the TSA's security threat disqualification regulations. In one of those cases, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the FAA, the TSA, and the Department of Justice pledged not to apply existing regulations to U.S. citizens or resident aliens, as further addressed in the Discussion of the Proposal.5

    2 Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490 (Dec. 12, 2003).

    3 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, 2004).

    4 Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security Grounds, 70 FR 25761 (May 16, 2005).

    5 Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, 2004).

    III. Discussion of the Proposal A. Scope

    The proposed rule would codify the FAA's authority to amend, modify, suspend, and revoke FAA-issued certificates and any part of such certificates issued to individuals under Title 49 based on the TSA's written notification that a certificate holder poses a security threat. The proposed rule would also clarify the FAA's authority to deny or hold in abeyance applications for certificates and any parts of such certificates when the TSA notifies the FAA that an applicant poses a security threat. The proposed rule would implement the security threat disqualification requirement mandated in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).

    Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this proposed rule relies, refer to certificate holders and applicants in terms of individuals, rather than entities.6 While there is separate statutory authority for FAA certificate-action against entities based on TSA security threat determinations,7 this proposed rule addresses only individuals who hold or are applying for certificates issued under Title 49 of the United States Code.

    6See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing “individuals” who are U.S. citizens to have a hearing on the record); § 46111(f) (“An individual who commences an appeal”); § 46111(g)(3) (“upon request of the individual adversely affected by an order of the [FAA] Administrator”); 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) (requiring screening of “individuals); Cf. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General Aviation Airport Access and Security Procedures, DHS OIG (July 2011), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-96_Jul11.pdf; Memorandum To The Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, 2004).

    7 For example, 49 U.S.C. 44924, provides for FAA suspension or revocation of a repair station's certificate based on a TSA determination regarding the repair station's security measures and security risk.

    B. Certificate Applicants

    While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a mechanism by which the FAA handles the amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an individual's certificate, it is silent as to how the FAA should handle security threat determinations at the certificate application stage. This proposed rule would codify the FAA's process for preventing the issuance of certificates to individuals at the application stage when the TSA finds the individuals to be security threats. FAA's authority to deny or hold in abeyance an individual's certificate application based on the TSA's written notification that an individual poses a security threat is necessary to implement the intent of 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires the FAA to coordinate with the TSA to ensure that certificate applicants are screened against all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government before being certificated by the FAA.

    The FAA must not issue certificates to individuals who the TSA finds to be a security threat. The proposed rule would provide that, upon notification from the TSA, the FAA would hold in abeyance the applications of these individuals while they are provided the opportunity to appeal the TSA's security threat determination under the TSA's appeal process. The FAA would deny an application only upon the TSA's notification of a final security threat determination. Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its security threat determination, the FAA would continue processing the application.

    C. Application of Regulations to U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens

    The FAA proposes to apply the security threat disqualification regulations to all individuals, including U.S. citizens and resident aliens, who hold FAA-issued certificates or are applying for these certificates. This approach would harmonize the proposed security threat disqualification regulations with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). It would also close a gap in the FAA's security threat disqualification regulations which are currently not being applied to U.S. citizens and resident aliens as a result of a pledge made by the FAA and the TSA in the case Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations case, unions representing aviation workers raised various challenges to the TSA and the FAA's current security threat disqualification regulations. The D.C. Circuit never reached the merits of the unions' claims. Instead, the Court dismissed the unions' petition for review, finding that intervening events had mooted their claims, specifically the new laws enacted by Congress. Both the TSA and the FAA pledged that the existing security threat regulations would no longer be applied to U.S. citizens or resident aliens as a result of the passage of § 46111 which provides a different mechanism for TSA security threat determinations and appeal procedures for U.S. citizens.8 The agencies also noted that when they issued new security threat disqualification regulations they would do so pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. Another D.C. Circuit decision, decided on the same day as the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations case, upheld the application of the same FAA security threat disqualification regulations to non-resident aliens because the regulations provide sufficient due process for non-resident aliens. Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). This proposal would establish regulations that apply equally to all certificate holders and applicants.

    8 Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, 2004).

    D. TSA Security Threat Determinations and Appeals

    The FAA's certificate denials are generally covered under 49 U.S.C. 44703 and, therefore, are appealable to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). In cases of security threat disqualifications, if the certificate action is appealable to the NTSB, the FAA does not anticipate that the scope of these appeals would extend beyond an examination of the procedural ground for the certificate action or application denial because an affected individual would be provided the opportunity to challenge the substance of TSA's security threat determination under TSA's appeal process.9

    9 The appropriate venue for appealing a certificate action based on a security threat determination was also discussed substantially in Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). The court stated that “Section 46111 makes no provision for NTSB review even for citizens, and the Conference Report states that non-resident aliens `have the right to the appeal procedures that [TSA] has already provided for them.' H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-334 at 152 (2003). In addition, § 46111(a) requires the FAA to respond automatically to TSA threat assessments . . . if these pilots retain any right to NTSB review at all, it is no broader than the review for procedural regularity that they have received . . .” Jifry at 1180.

    In the case of a security threat disqualification, the certificate action or application denial would be based on the TSA's applicant vetting and security threat determinations, as mandated under 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). The FAA's reliance on TSA's vetting and security threat determinations is also based on the broad statutory authority and responsibility that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71, (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001), placed in the office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with regard to intelligence information and security threat assessments. The FAA is not privy to the basis for the TSA's security threat determinations, which often include classified information. Therefore, the FAA's certificate actions and application denials are based solely on written notification by the TSA of a security threat determination against an individual. Accordingly, appeals of the security threat determinations made by the TSA are made through the TSA's administrative appeal process.10

    10 See 49 U.S.C. 46111. TSA currently is using interim redress procedures for U.S. citizen, U.S. non-citizen national, and lawful permanent resident certificate holders. While section 46111 does not require that TSA provide ALJ review to U.S. non-citizen nationals and lawful permanent residents, TSA has chosen to do so in its interim procedures. TSA also provides U.S. non-citizen nationals and lawful permanent residents with review by the TSA Final Decision Maker if those individuals choose to appeal an ALJ Decision.

    IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

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

    The existing security threat disqualification regulations, 14 CFR parts 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, disqualify any person who the TSA has found to be a security threat from obtaining an FAA certificate. These regulations went into effect on January 24, 2004. A year later, the President signed statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) into law. 49 U.S.C. 46111 directs the FAA to take action against the holder of any part of a certificate in response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also provides an appeal process for U.S. citizens. 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) directs TSA to coordinate with the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened against a consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. The existing regulations and the statutory authority are virtually identical, and the FAA has been relying on the statutory authority, not the existing regulations, to prevent individuals who are security threats from obtaining or holding a certificate. The FAA has not updated its regulations since the enactment of statutory authority 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Since there are no new requirements in the proposed rule, the expected outcome would be a minimal cost, if any, and a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal economic impact.

    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    The proposed rule provides similar requirements found in the existing security threat disqualification regulations in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, and statutory authority located at 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed rule would not impose any new costs to the industry. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking action.

    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this proposed rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that the objective of the rule is for the safety of the American public and is therefore not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    F. International Compatibility

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

    G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined preliminarily that this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

    D. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

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

    VI. Additional Information A. Comments Invited

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

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

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

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

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 3

    Aviation safety.

    14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Teachers.

    14 CFR Part 63

    Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

    14 CFR Part 65

    Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 3—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44704, and 46111.

    2. Add a new subpart A heading to read as follows: Subpart A—General Requirements Concerning Type Certificated Products or Products, Parts, Appliances, or Materials That May Be Used on Type-Certificated Products 3. Designate §§ 3.1 and 3.5 as subpart A. 4. Add new subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—Security Threat Disqualification Sec. 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of a certificate held by an individual. 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals for a certificate or any part of a certificate.
    § 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of a certificate held by an individual.

    When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual holding a certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking any certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA.

    § 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals for a certificate or any part of a certificate.

    (a) When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual who has applied for a certificate or any part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will hold the individual's certificate applications in abeyance pending further notification from the TSA.

    (b) When the TSA notifies the FAA that the TSA has made a final security threat determination regarding an individual, the FAA will deny all the individual's certificate applications. Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its security threat determination, the FAA will continue processing the individual's applications.

    PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS 5. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).

    § 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
    6. Remove and reserve § 61.18. PART 63—CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS 7. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    § 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
    8. Remove and reserve § 63.14. PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS 9. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    § 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]
    10. Remove and reserve § 65.14. Issued, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 46111, and 44903(j) in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018. Charles Trippe, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15534 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0635; Product Identifier 2017-NM-183-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a certain modification to the auto relight system is incompatible with a certain beta lockout system modification and could result in de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the auto ignition system and applicable rectification. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0635; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Program Management Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847-294-7140; fax 847-294-7834.

    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-2018-0635; Product Identifier 2017-NM-183-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-21R1, dated June 28, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 airplanes; Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes; and Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the incorporation of the Auto Relight modification per Bombardier SB [Service Bulletin] 8-74-02 on an aeroplane with a Beta Lockout System (BLS) installed, it was noticed that if SB 8-74-02 is incorporated in conjunction with, or after the incorporation of BLS SB 8-76-35 ([Canadian] AD CF-2013-15) or SB 8-76-24 (FAA AD 2000-02-13 [Amendment 39-11531 (65 FR 4095, January 26, 2000)]), the #2 engine auto ignition function of the beta lockout system will not be available when the beta lockout system is activated. This condition, if not corrected, may result in a #2 engine uncommanded in-flight shut down.

    To preclude any future occurrence of the noted deficiency, Bombardier has issued SB 8-74-02 Revision B to highlight its incompatibility with post SB 8-76-35 or 8-76-24 BLS compliant aeroplanes. In addition, Bombardier issued a new SB, 8-74-06 for Auto Relight System modification that can be incorporated in conjunction with or on those aeroplanes that were previously modified per SB 8-76-35 or 8-76-24.

    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Bombardier has also issued SB 8-74-07 to inspect and rectify the system wiring on affected aeroplanes.

    The original version of this [Canadian] AD was issued to mandate compliance with the SB 8-74-07 requirements.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is issued to clarify the Applicability section and correct a typographic error in the SB number referenced in the Corrective Action section of the original [Canadian] AD.

    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-2018-0635.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 8-74-07, dated April 13, 2016. The service information describes an inspection to determine correct operation of the auto ignition system for airplanes on which a beta lockout system was installed, and rectification to re-activate a previously disabled auto ignition system that will address inadvertent de-activation of the auto ignition feature. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 185 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
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 None $85 $15,725

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Rectification 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $6 $261
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0635; Product Identifier 2017-NM-183-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 6, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 003 through 540 inclusive, on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-74-02, dated March 3, 2000; or Revision A, dated January 27, 2014; has been accomplished concurrently with or after accomplishment of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-76-35 or 8-76-24.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 74, Ignition; 76, Engine Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that a certain modification to the auto relight system is incompatible with a certain beta lockout system modification and could result in de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. We are issuing this AD to prevent unintentional de-activation of the auto ignition feature of the No. 2 engine when the beta lockout system is activated, which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the No. 2 engine.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 6000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, inspect and, as applicable, rectify the auto ignition system in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-74-07, dated April 13, 2016.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for rectification required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier In-Service Modification IS8Q7400001, Revision C, dated November 27, 2015.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-21R1, dated June 28, 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-2018-0635.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Program Management Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847-294-7140; fax 847-294-7834.

    (3) For information about AMOCs, contact Joe Catanzaro, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7366; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected].

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 13, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15659 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 169 [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] RIN 1076-AF20 Rights-of-Way on Indian Land; Bond Exemption AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would exempt Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments from the requirement to obtain a bond, insurance, or alternative form of security for a right-of-way across Indian land and BIA land where such governments are prohibited by law from obtaining security.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by September 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit comments by email to [email protected] or to Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs (RACA), U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 4660, Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680; [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 19, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) finalized revisions to the regulations governing rights-of-way on Indian land and BIA land at 25 CFR part 169. See 80 FR 72492. The regulations became effective on April 21, 2016. 81 FR 14976. The final regulations established new requirements for bonding, insurance, or alternative form of security to cover the annual rental, estimated damages, operation and maintenance charges, and restoration. See 25 CFR 169.103(a). The regulations allow for waiver of this requirement on a case-by-case basis. See 25 CFR 169.103(f).

    Currently, a governmental entity applying for a right-of-way across Indian land or BIA land must seek a waiver (and landowner consent for the waiver) from the requirement to provide bonding, insurance, or alternate security in those cases in which the entity is prohibited by law from obtaining such bonding, insurance, or alternate security. This rule would eliminate the need for governmental entities to seek a waiver for each instance by exempting governmental entities from the requirement to obtain bonding, insurance, or alternative form of security if they are prohibited by law from doing so. It also requires governmental entities to provide a certification with their application, with citation to applicable law, that they are prohibited by law from providing security. In addition, this rule requires governmental entities to notify landowners that they are prohibited by law from providing security when they notify the Indian landowners of their application under 25 CFR 169.107.

    Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not change current funding requirements and would not impose any economic effects on small governmental entities.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and have determined there are no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes that will result from this rulemaking because the rule addresses an inconsistency that may have otherwise prevented governments from obtaining rights-of-way on Indian land.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., prohibits a Federal agency from conducting or sponsoring a collection of information that requires OMB approval, unless such approval has been obtained and the collection request displays a currently valid OMB control number. Nor is any person required to respond to an information collection request that has not complied with the PRA. In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), the information collections in 25 CFR part 169 are authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0181, Rights-of-Way on Indian Land, which expires 04/30/2019. The requirements in this rule to provide a legal citation and notice is not expected to have a quantifiable effect on the hour burden estimate for the information collection, but BIA will review whether its current estimates are affected by this change at the next renewal.

    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the form or regulation requesting the information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because this is an administrative and procedural regulation. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. Clarity of this Regulation

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    a. Be logically organized;

    b. Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    c. Use clear language rather than jargon;

    d. Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    e. Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you believe lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    M. Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    N. E.O. 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it imposes no more than de minimis costs.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 169

    Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, proposes to amend 25 CFR part 169 as follows:

    PART 169—RIGHTS-OF-WAY OVER INDIAN LAND 1. The authority citation for part 169 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 323-328; 25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.

    2. Amend § 169.103 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
    § 169.103 What bonds, insurance, or other security must accompany the application?

    (k) The requirements of this section do not apply to Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments who are prohibited by law from providing a bond, insurance, or other security. Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments seeking this exemption must include with their application a certification, including a citation to applicable law, that they are prohibited by law from providing security. Federal, State, Tribal, or local governments must also notify landowners that they are prohibited by law from providing security when they notify the Indian landowners of their application under § 169.107.

    Dated: June 29, 2018. John Tahsuda, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs exercising the authority of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15680 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0683] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Dunkirk Harbor, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY during the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0683 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 LCDR Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected].

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

    On March 22, 2018, Dunkirk Local Development Corporation and Dunkirk Festivals notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a professional high speed powerboat race from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The race will be held in the vicinity of the Dunkirk Harbor. Hazards from the boat regatta include high speed vessels. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix would be a safety concern for anyone within the designated safety zone.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance the safety of vessels and racers on the navigable waters within the designated safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a temporary safety zone enforced intermittently, from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018 with a rain date of August 18, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to enhance the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. boat races. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic would not be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which would impact a small designated area of Lake Erie. However, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security 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 establishing a safety zone lasting 7 hours that would prohibit entry into all waters inside of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W. 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 (REC) 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:

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0683 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0683 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk,

    NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W.

    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018 with a rain date of August 18, 2018.

    (c) Regulations.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Joseph S. Dufresne, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15672 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 POSTNET Barcode AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is proposing an amendment of the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual, (DMM®) to remove all references to the POSTNETTM barcode.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to [email protected], with a subject line of “POSTNET.” Faxed comments are not accepted.

    You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC, 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lizbeth Dobbins at (202) 268-3789 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7261.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 2, 2012, the Postal Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 12764-12769) to discontinue automation price eligibility for POSTNET barcodes. This was followed by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 26185-26191) on May 3, 2012.

    Effective January 27, 2013, the Postal Service revised the DMM throughout various sections to discontinue automation price eligibility based on the use of POSTNET barcodes on all types of mail. However, while the use of the POSTNET barcode was discontinued for price eligibility, the Postal Service continued to allow the use of the POSTNET barcode to qualify for certain Business Reply Mail® prices and in other circumstances. The DMM therefore retained language referring to POSTNET barcodes.

    Proposal

    As a result, after discussion with the mailing industry the Postal Service is proposing to remove all references to the POSTNET barcode from the DMM. This decision was based on the limited use of the POSTNET barcode and the need to simplify the standards in regards to barcoding letter-size and flat-size mailpieces.

    The Postal Service will continue to process mailpieces with a POSTNET barcode to accommodate customers who may have preprinted stock bearing a POSTNET barcode.

    Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

    We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.

    Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

    2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as follows: Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 200 Commercial Mail Letters, Cards, Flats, and Parcels 202 Elements on the Face of a Mailpiece 5.0 Barcode Placement Letters and Flats 5.1 Letter-Size 5.1.4 Additional Barcode Permissibility

    [Revise the text of 5.1.4 to read as follows:]

    An automation letter or a letter claimed at Enhanced Carrier Route saturation or high density automation letter prices may not bear a 5-digit or ZIP+4 Intelligent Mail barcode in the lower right corner (barcode clear zone). The piece may bear an additional Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block only if a qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode with a delivery point routing code appears in the lower right corner.

    5.2 Flat-Size 5.2.1 Barcode Placement for Flats

    [Revise the fifth sentence of 5.2.1 to read as follows:]

    * * * An additional Intelligent Mail barcode may also appear in the address block of an automation flat, when the qualifying Intelligent Mail barcode is not in the address block. * * *

    6.0 Barcode Placement for Parcels

    [Revise the heading and text of 6.3 to read as follows:]

    6.3 Intelligent Mail Barcodes

    Intelligent Mail barcodes (IMb) do not meet barcode eligibility requirements for parcels and do not qualify for any barcode-related prices for parcels, but one barcode may be included only in the address block on a parcel, except on eVS parcels. An Intelligent Mail barcode in the address block must be placed according to 5.3.

    8.0 Facing Identification Mark (FIM) 8.2 Pattern

    [Revise the third sentence in the introductory text of 8.2 to read as follows:]

    * * * The required FIM pattern as shown in Exhibit 8.2.0 below depends on the type of mail and the presence of an Intelligent Mail barcode as follows:

    204 Barcode Standards Overview

    [Revise the link heading under “Overview” to read as follows:]

    1.0 Standards for Intelligent Mail Barcodes

    [Revise the heading of 1.0 to read as follows:]

    1.0 Standards for Intelligent Mail Barcodes 1.1 General

    [Revise the text of 1.1 to read as follows:]

    An Intelligent Mail barcode is a USPS-developed method to encode ZIP Code information on mail that can be read for sorting by automated machines. Intelligent Mail barcodes also encode other tracking information.

    [Delete 1.2, POSTNET Barcode, in its entirety and renumber 1.3 through 1.6 as 1.2 through 1.5.]

    507 Mailer Services 4.0 Address Correction Services 4.2 Address Change Service (ACS) 4.2.6 Additional Standards—When Using Intelligent Mail Barcodes

    * * * Mailpieces must meet the following specifications:

    [Revise the text of item b to read as follows:]

    b. Flat-size mailpieces may be mailed at nonautomation or automation prices.

    600 Basic Standards For All Mailing Services 604 Postage Payment Methods and Refunds 4.0 Postage Meters and PC Postage Products (“Postage Evidencing Systems”) 4.3 Postage Payment 4.3.3 Placement of Postage

    * * * When placing indicia on mailpieces, position indicia at least 1/4 inch from the right edge of the mailpiece and 1/4 inch from the top edge of the mailpiece and as follows:

    [Revise the text of item e to read as follows:]

    e. Do not allow the indicia to infringe on the areas reserved for the FIM, Intelligent Mail barcode, or optical character reader (OCR) clear zone.

    Index P

    [Delete the “POSTNET” line item in the Index.]

    Ruth Stevenson, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15549 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 New Mailing Standards for Merchandise Return Service AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is proposing to revise Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) to provide for new procedures for the processing and rating of Merchandise Return Service (MRS) pieces, and in the future, to transition all current MRS permit holders to use the new procedures.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to [email protected] with a subject line of “Merchandise Return Service”. Faxed comments are not accepted. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Direct questions to Karen F. Key by email at [email protected] or phone at (202) 268-7492, or Vicki Bosch by email at vicki.m.bos[email protected] or phone at (202) 268-4978.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its Package Platform initiative, the Postal Service is leveraging the devices that were installed as part of the Automated Verification System to enhance the capability of equipment used for the processing of package-size mailpieces. The upgraded equipment is able to capture near real-time data on mailpiece dimensions, weight, mail class or product, and the presence of Extra Services, and to transmit these data to Postal Service information systems as applicable. The Postal Service is proposing to use this new technology to streamline its processes for the identification, rating, and postage assessment of returns. Under this process, automated package-sorting equipment will identify return packages as they pass special scanners, determine the weight, dimension and mail class of the packages, use the captured data to determine postage charges associated with each package, and enable account holders to pay the postage for the returns electronically.

    This improved functionality will generally eliminate the need to manually weigh and rate MRS mailpieces, eliminate the scan-based payment process used with USPS Return Services (a current category of MRS), and eliminate the need for processes to estimate postage for MRS pieces via sampling under the Postage Due Weight Averaging Program.

    The Postal Service is now proposing to create a new rating and payment methodology within the MRS product line. This new process will incorporate features of both traditional MRS and USPS Return Services. Returns able to meet the eligibility criteria for this new methodology will be categorized under the MRS product line. The new methodology is expected to replace the existing USPS Return Services process at some point in the near future, and is intended to ultimately eliminate the need for the manual rating process used with traditional MRS. The Postal Service expects to eliminate the use of USPS Return Services and the scan-based payment process no sooner than January 2020 and traditional MRS no sooner than January 2021. During the transition to the new methodology, the Postal Service intends to work with the mailing industry to ensure all existing USPS Return Services and MRS permit holders are transitioned to the new process before these deadlines arrive. Permit holders who are unable to meet the deadlines stated above can contact the Postal Service to request consideration for an extension. The Postal Service will evaluate extension requests on a case-by-case basis.

    The new methodology will include many of the features associated with the current USPS Return Services process, and will be tentatively called Automated Returns. The three service categories under Automated Returns are proposed to be Automated Priority Mail Returns, Automated First-Class Package Returns, and Automated Ground Returns, which will be linked to Priority Mail®, First-Class Package Service®—Commercial, and Parcel Select GroundTM product prices, respectively.

    For Priority Mail, Commercial Plus® and Commercial Base® prices are proposed to apply to qualifying Automated Returns account holders, based on the payer's outgoing volume. Negotiated Service Agreement prices are also expected to be available for eligible customers using Automated Returns.

    Similar to the process used with traditional MRS and USPS Return Services, the Postal Service does not expect to require account holders to pay annual permit fees and/or annual account maintenance fees to receive returns under the new Automated Returns methodology.

    Under the new Automated Returns methodology, the Postal Service proposes to require authorized permit holders to pay postage and Extra Service fees through the Enterprise Payment System (EPS).

    EPS is a new payment system designed to provide a single point for all payment-related activities, and will make payments easier for permit holders who pay the Postal Service through various payment methods or mail from different locations. To use EPS, businesses will establish a single account to pay for all products and services. This account would be recognized by all postal facilities. Commercial mailers will set up an Electronic Payment Account (EPA) that can be used for electronic funds transfer, retail deposit, mobile deposit, and ACH Debit. Business mailers will be able to view payment information in a consolidated format on an EPS dashboard that shows account balances, postage statement reports, transactions history, and other information. For EPS set-up or support, contact [email protected] or call 1-800-522-9085.

    The Automated Returns methodology is expected to use the same prices as those currently applied to USPS Return Services, and to apply those prices to each individual return mailpiece in near real time. Because of the greater level of accuracy and granularity associated with the new process, the Postal Service does not expect current USPS Return Services permit holders to be negatively affected. As a result, the Postal Service proposes to notify and transition current USPS Return Services permit holders meeting the necessary criteria to an EPA account automatically, and unless the permit holder objects, to convert their permits to the Automated Returns methodology without further action required by the permit holder. The Postal Service expects to work with current traditional MRS permit holders to eventually transition them to the new process.

    The Postal Service proposes to limit Extra Services available for the new Automated Returns methodology to Insurance, Signature ConfirmationTM, and Certificate of Mailing. USPS Tracking® will still be included as part of the service. The Postal Service proposes to omit the options to use Registered Mail®, Special Handling, and Return Receipt for Merchandise with Automated Returns. Over time, the use of these services has declined, and they are now rarely used with MRS. The Postal Service believes that permit holders have generally transitioned to other services to replace the functions previously filled by these services. The Postal Service also proposes to omit the Mailing Acknowledgement option currently used with traditional MRS. A mailer may continue to obtain a Certificates of Mailing, if the returns piece is brought to the retail service counter.

    It is expected that not all returns mailpieces will be capable of being processed on Postal Service automated package sorting equipment. Returns containing hazardous materials, such as regulated and sharps medical waste and lithium batteries, sometimes bypass mechanized processing and are instead manually handled in USPS processing plants. The Postal Service proposes to implement an alternative process to capture and rate these mailpieces. In some cases, the Postal Service expects to use an average price generated from the data collected in the prior month and to apply the average price to assess the postage for each return.

    Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed revisions to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

    We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes, if our proposal is adopted.

    Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

    2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows: Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 500 Additional Services 505 Return Services

    [Add a new 505.3.8 through 505.3.8.7 to read as follows:]

    3.8 Automated Returns 3.8.1 Basic Standards

    Automated Returns allows an authorized shipping products account holder to pay the postage and extra service fees on single-piece priced Automated Priority Mail Returns, Automated First-Class Package Returns and Automated Ground Returns parcels returned to the account holder by senders (mailers) via a special barcoded label produced by the account holder. Unless otherwise restricted, any mailable matter may be mailed using any of the Automated Returns options. Any content that constitutes First-Class Mail matter may only be mailed using Automated Priority Mail Returns. Automated Returns are subject to the following conditions:

    a. Availability: Automated Returns is available to the account holder for mailing to the account holder's designated address on the USPS Automated Returns label(s).

    b. Payment Guarantee: The account holder must guarantee payment of the proper postage and extra service fees (except for insurance, Signature Confirmation, and Certificate of Mailing, when purchased by the sender) on all parcels returned via a special label produced by the account holder. The account holder must have sufficient funds in their Electronic Payment Account to pay the postage and extra service fees on an ongoing basis.

    c. Where Service Established: Automated Returns accounts may be established at any Post Office in the United States and its territories and possessions or at any U.S. Military Post Office overseas APO/FPO/DPO. Automated Returns is not available for returns from any foreign country.

    d. Official Mail: Any authorized user of official (penalty) mail may use Automated Returns subject to the standards in 703.7.0, which supersede any conflicting standards below.

    3.8.2 Accounts

    Automated Returns accounts are subject to the following:

    a. Account Application: An approved shipping products account must be established to use Automated Returns. Applicants must establish a shipping products account by completing PS Form 3615 in hardcopy or online through the Business Customer Gateway.

    b. Advance Deposit Account: The account holder must pay postage and extra service fees through an Enterprise Payment System (EPS) Account (EPS account holder) and agree to the terms and conditions for use of such EPS Account.

    c. Application Process: Applicants must have a valid Enterprise Payment Account and be registered in the Business Customer Gateway. Except for Automated Returns labels generated by the USPS Application Program Interface (API), all returns labels that have properly constructed Intelligent Mail package barcode approved by the National Customer Support Center (NCSC).

    d. Canceled Accounts: If the account is cancelled by the EPS account holder, Automated Returns mail bearing the sender's return address is returned to the sender; otherwise, it is treated as dead mail.

    e. Account Cancellation: The USPS may cancel an account if the EPS account holder refuses to accept and pay postage and fees for Automated Returns mailpieces, fails to keep sufficient funds in the advance deposit account to cover postage and fees, or distributes return labels that do not meet USPS standards.

    f. Reapplying After Cancellation: To receive a new account after a previous Automated Returns account is canceled, the applicant must amend the PS Form 3615 on file to reflect the new application date, or reregister in the Business Customer Gateway. If not using labels generated by the USPS Application Program Interface (API), applicants must submit for approval two samples for each label format to the NCSC. In addition, applicants must provide evidence that the reasons for the account cancellation are corrected, and maintain funds in their advance deposit account sufficient to cover normal returns for at least 2 weeks.

    g. Using Other Post Offices: The account holder may distribute Automated Returns labels for return through other Post Office locations when the account holder opens and keeps their advance deposit account at the Post Office where the permit is issued and supplies that Postmaster the name, address, and telephone number of a representative in each additional station or branch if different from the information on the application.

    3.8.3 Postage and Prices

    Postage and prices are subject to the following:

    a. Postage: Postage is calculated based on the weight of the parcel and zone associated with the point or origin and delivery ZIP Code, except that postage for Automated First-Class Package Returns is based only on the weight of the parcel. Automated Returns mailpieces are charged postage and Extra Service fees based on the service type code embedded in the Intelligent Mail Package barcode (IMpb). If all or part of the IMpb is unreadable, or the mailpiece is unable to be priced based on the data collected, postage will be based on the average postage per mailpiece recorded for that EPS account holder from the previous month or quarter, as applicable. If an EPS account holder has no demonstrated payment history, postage will be determined by the Postal Service based on data for comparable account holders.

    b. Prices: Prices for Automated Priority Mail Returns, Automated First-Class Package Returns, and Automated Ground Returns mailpieces are charged as follows:

    1. Commercial Base prices are available for account holders using Automated Priority Mail Returns, when all applicable requirements are met.

    2. Commercial Plus prices are available for Automated Priority Mail Returns mailpieces that qualify for Commercial Base prices and for which the account holder has a customer commitment agreement with the USPS (see 223.1.3).

    3. First-Class Package Service—Commercial prices are available for Automated First-Class Package Returns mailpieces when all applicable requirements are met.

    4. Commercial Parcel Select Ground prices are available for Automated Ground Returns mailpieces when all applicable requirements are met.

    c. Extra and Additional Services: The account holder may obtain extra and additional services with Automated Returns as follows:

    1. Insurance—Insurance is available for mailpieces that have the applicable service type code for insurance imbedded into the IMpb on the label, and for which the account holder has provided electronic data that supports the value of the merchandise being returned (see 503.4.2). Only the account holder may file a claim (see 609).

    2. Signature Confirmation—Signature Confirmation service is available for Automated Returns (see 503.8.0).

    3. Pickup on Demand Service—Pickup on Demand service is available for Automated Returns (see 507.7.0).

    3.8.4 Certificate of Mailing

    Customers (mailers) mailing an Automated Returns mailpiece may obtain a certificate of mailing at their own expense at the time of mailing by presenting the certificate at a Post Office retail unit to obtain the receipt.

    3.8.5 Labels

    Distribution and preparation of labels are subject to the following:

    a. Distribution of Labels: Automated Returns labels may be distributed to customers as an enclosure with merchandise, as a separate item (including when requested electronically through the Business Customer Gateway for printing and delivery to the customer by USPS), as an electronic transmission for customer downloading and printing, or through one of the account holder's designated pickup facilities. Any such label distributed to a customer must meet USPS format standards, including the requirement to furnish instructions.

    b. Label Preparation: Automated Returns labels must meet the standards in the Parcel Labeling Guide available on the PostalPro website. Standard label sizes are 3 inches by 6 inches, 4 inches by 4 inches, or 4 inches by 6 inches, and must be certified by the USPS for use prior to distribution. All other label sizes and other privately printed labels require written approval from the NCSC. The label must include an Intelligent Mail package barcode, accommodate all required information, be legible, and be prepared in accordance with Publication 199, Intelligent Mail Package Barcode (IMpb) Implementation Guide, available on the PostalPro website. EPS account holders or their agents may distribute approved return labels and instructions by means specified in 3.5.1. EPS account holders or their agents must provide written instructions to the label end-user (mailer) as specified in 3.5.5. Labels cannot be faxed to customers (mailers). If all applicable content and format standards are met, Automated Returns labels may be produced by any of the following methods:

    1. As an impression printed by the EPS account holder directly onto the mailpiece to be returned.

    2. As a separate label preprinted by the EPS account holder to be affixed by the customer onto the mailpiece to be returned. The reverse side of the label must bear an adhesive strong enough to bond the label securely to the mailpiece. Labels must be printed and delivered by USPS to the customer when requested electronically by the EPS account holder or its agents through the Business Customer Gateway, or provided as an electronic file created by the EPS account holder for local output and printing by the customer. The electronic file must include instructions that explain how to affix the label securely to the mailpiece to be returned, and that caution against covering with tape or other material any part of the label where postage and fee information is to be recorded.

    c. Labeling Instructions: Written instructions must be provided with the label that, at a minimum, directs the customer to do the following:

    1. “If your name and address are not already preprinted in the return address area, print them neatly in that area or attach a return address label there.”

    2. “Attach the label squarely onto the largest side of the mailpiece, centered if possible. Place the label so that it does not fold over to another side. Do not place tape over any barcodes on the label or any part of the label where postage and fee information will be recorded.”

    3. “Remove or Obliterate any other addresses, barcodes or price markings on the outside of the parcel.”

    4. “Mail the labeled parcel at a Post Office, drop it in a collection box, leave it with your letter carrier, or schedule a package pickup at usps.com.”

    3.8.6 Enter and Deposit

    The EPS account holder's customers may mail the Automated Returns mailpiece at any Post Office; any associated office, station, or branch; in any collection box (except a Priority Mail Express box); with any rural carrier; by package pickup; on business routes during regular mail delivery if prior arrangements are made with the carrier; as part of a collection run for other mail (special arrangements might be required); or at any place designated by the Postmaster for the receipt of mail. Automated Returns mailpieces deposited in collection boxes without valid return addresses are treated as undeliverable mail.

    3.8.7 Additional Standards

    Additional mailing standards applicable to each service option are as follows:

    a. Automated Priority Mail Returns may contain any mailable matter weighing no more than 70 pounds. APO/FPO mail is subject to 703.2.0 and 703.4.0, and Department of State mail is subject to 703.3.0. Automated Priority Mail Returns receive expeditious handling and transportation, with service standards in accordance with Priority Mail. Automated Priority Mail Returns mailed under a specific customer agreement is charged postage according to the individual agreement. Commercial Base and Commercial Plus prices are the same as for outbound Priority Mail in Notice 123, Price List.

    b. Automated First-Class Package Returns handling, transportation, and eligibility of contents are the same as for outbound First-Class Package Service — Commercial parcels under 283. Automated First-Class Package Returns may not contain documents or personal correspondence, except that such parcels may contain invoices, receipts, incidental advertising, and other documents that relate in all substantial respects to merchandise contained in the parcels.

    c. Automated Ground Returns provides ground transportation for mailpieces containing mailable matter weighing no more than 70 pounds and meeting the content standards in 153.3.0. Automated Ground Returns assumes the handing and transportation and service objectives for delivery of USPS Retail Ground.

    Ruth Stevenson, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15617 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0389; FRL-9980-83—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Incorporation by Reference Updates AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve eight State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming, four submitted on March 27, 2017, and four submitted on March 28, 2018. The revisions include updates to incorporation by reference within several parts of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations that are part of the SIP. Additional revisions are proposed that: (1) Correct an inconsistency regarding internal combustion engine nitrogen oxide requirements; (2) amend three state regulations to maintain consistency with federal regulations; and (3) update a state internet address.

    DATES:

    Comments: Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0389, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Dresser, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129, (303) 312-6385, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On November 17, 2016, and December 5, 2017, the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality conducted public hearings pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102 to consider the adoption of revisions and additions to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations. The EQC approved changes were submitted to the EPA for approval into Wyoming's State Implementation Plan (SIP) on March 27, 2017 (2017 Submittal) and March 28, 2018 (2018 Submittal). The SIP submittals include: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal); (2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal), and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration (2017 Submittal); (4) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (5) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 3, Emission standards for nitrogen oxides (2017 Submittal); (6) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); and (7) Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6 (2017 Submittal); (8) Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, and Section 12, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal).

    The March 28, 2018 state submittals include requests to update the code of federal regulations (CFR) date of incorporation by reference to reflect the July 1, 2017 CFR, which supersedes the requested changes in the March 27, 2017 state submittals that incorporated by reference the July 1, 2016 CFR (Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference; Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, Section 12, Incorporation by reference).

    II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    The EPA evaluated the proposed amendments to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations submitted by the State of Wyoming on March 27, 2017, and March 28, 2018. The EPA notes that the incorporation by reference updates requested by Wyoming in the March 27, 2017 submittal have been superseded by updates requested in their March 28, 2018 submittal and are not analyzed here. The subsequent analysis for each SIP submittal is as follows:

    (1) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference the July 1, 2016 CFR. This request has been superseded by the a more recent submittal which requests updates to Chapter 8, Section 10, described and analyzed in SIP submittal (2), as follows.

    (2) The State is requesting that the EPA correct a reference in Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans. Specifically, the request includes a minor typographical correction to particulate matter to maintain consistency with federally approved language in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(4); a change from “PM10” to “PM” in the State's rule Chapter 8, Section 3(h)(i)(D). The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate. This action also proposes to update Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 8, Section 10 (noted earlier in SIP submittal (1)) on March 27, 2017 that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.

    (3) This action proposes to update Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, to remove an outdated Federal Register citation under the definition of `tpy CO2 equivalent emission (CO2e),' in the State's Rule Chapter 6, Section 4(a) and the location for obtaining a copy of the federal regulation. By deleting the reference to the outdated federal regulation (November 29, 2013), the revised State rule includes the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii)(a). This provision of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit rules describes one of the steps to compute the amount of GHGs emitted, and explains that one multiplies the mass amount of emissions (tpy) for each of the six greenhouse gases, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98 of this chapter—Global Warming Potentials. The State adopted these amendments in December 2017 and therefore adopted the version of Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98 that was in effect at that time. The EPA believes this update is necessary and appropriate to accurately cite the most recent calculation methodology and GHG's associated global warming potential.

    (4) As requested in the State's March 28, 2018 submittal, the EPA is proposing to update Chapter 6, Section 14, Incorporation by reference to adopt by reference the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 6, Section 14 on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that the update is necessary and appropriate to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.

    (5) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, Section 3, Emission standards for nitrogen oxides, which corrects an inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines. The EPA finds that the requirements governing fuel burning equipment (including internal combustion engines) are covered in Chapter 1, Section 3 of the SIP; so, the language removed in Chapter 3, Section 3, (a)(viii), is a vestigial exemption for engines with a heat input less than 200 million Btu per hour that no longer applies. Therefore, the EPA finds that the change made to Chapter 3, Section 3, is necessary and appropriately corrects the noted inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines. Finally, the State's rulemaking action included an update to the website link for contact information for the Cheyenne Office of the Wyoming Division of Air Quality, Chapter 3, Section 9(a) and (b). The EPA finds it is necessary and appropriate to update the website referenced in the SIP to ensure it is accurate.

    (6) This action proposes to update Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference, to adopt by reference from the July 1, 2017 CFR. The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 3, Section 9 on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016, and have since been superseded by the March 28, 2018 submittal. The EPA finds that the updates proposed to Chapter 3, Section 9, are necessary and appropriate to cite the more recent July 1, 2017 CFR and incorporate by reference.

    (7) This action proposes to update Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6, Ambient standards for ozone. The State has revised Section 6 to include the latest (2015) ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to reflect EPA's 2015 revision to the ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.19.

    (8) The State previously submitted SIP revisions for Chapter 2, Section 12, Incorporation by reference on March 27, 2017, that allowed adoption by reference of federal regulations as of July 1, 2016. The EPA finds that this update is necessary and appropriate to update the incorporation by reference date to July 1, 2017, as requested in Wyoming's March 28, 2018 letter.

    III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the eight SIP submittals to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations submitted by the State of Wyoming on March 27, 2017 and March 28, 2018. This action proposes updates to: (1) Chapter 8 Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2017 Submittal); (2) Chapter 8, Nonattainment Area Regulations, Section 3, Conformity of general federal actions to state implementation plans (2018 Submittal), and Section 10, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (3) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 4, Prevention of significant deterioration, to remove an outdated Federal Register citation under the definition of `tpy CO2 equivalent emission (CO2e)' (2017 Submittal); (4) Chapter 6, Permitting Requirements, Section 14, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (5) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 3, Emission standards for nitrogen oxides, which corrects an inconsistency regarding internal combustion engines (2017 Submittal); (6) Chapter 3, General Emission Standards, Section 9, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal); (7) Chapter 2, Ambient Standards, Section 6, to include the latest ozone NAAQS (2017 Submittal); and (8) Chapter 2, Ambient standards for ozone, and Section 12, Incorporation by reference (2018 Submittal).

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the amendments described in section III. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Debra Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15481 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061; FRL-9981-08—Region 10] Air Plan Approval; Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2015 Ozone 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 February 7, 2018, the State of Washington made a submittal to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to approve the submittal as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2018-0061 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 whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. State Submittal III. EPA Evaluation IV. Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).1 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable elements of section 110(a)(2).2 One of these applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four prongs within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) contains prongs 1 and 2, while section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes prongs 3 and 4. This action addresses the first two prongs under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under prongs 1 and 2 of the good neighbor provision, a state's SIP for a new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). Under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, the EPA gives independent significance to evaluating prong 1 and prong 2.

    1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone Final Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

    2 SIP revisions that are intended to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the elements under 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.

    We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in several regulatory actions, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter standards, and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update).3 These actions only addressed interstate transport in to the eastern United States 4 and did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

    3See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Final Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011); CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update) Final Rule, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).

    4 For purposes of CSAPR and the CSAPR Update action, the western U.S. (or the West) was considered to consist of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The eastern U.S. (or the East) was considered to consist of the 37 states east of the 11 western states.

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR, the CSAPR Update and previous rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,5 the EPA, working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: 6 (1) Identify downwind air quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered “linked” and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), considering cost and air quality factors, to prevent linked upwind states identified in step 2 from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those emissions reductions. This four-step framework has also been used to address interstate transport with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in the western United States.7

    5 Other rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).

    6 The four-step interstate framework has also been used to address requirements of the good neighbor provision for some previous particulate matter (PM) NAAQS, including in the western United States. See, e.g., 83 FR 30380 (June 28, 2018).

    7See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Interstate Transport Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particular Matter, and Sulfur Dioxide, Proposed Rule, 83 FR 5375, 5376-77 (February 7, 2018).

    The EPA has released several documents containing information relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023, on which we requested comment.8 On October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017 memorandum) containing updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response to comments on the NODA.9 Although the 2017 memorandum also released data for a 2023 modeling year, we specifically stated that the modeling may be useful for states developing SIPs to address remaining good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but did not address the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Finally, on March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum (2018 memorandum) indicating the same 2023 modeling data released in the 2017 memorandum would also be useful for evaluating potential downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS (step 1 of the four-step framework). The 2018 memorandum also included newly available contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating their impact on potential downwind air quality problems (step 2 of the four-step framework) in their efforts to develop good neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to address their interstate transport obligations.10

    8See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).

    9See Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017.

    10See Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018.

    The 2018 memorandum describes the process and results of the updated photochemical modeling to project ambient ozone levels for the year 2023. The memorandum explains that the selection of the 2023 analytic year aligns with the 2015 ozone NAAQS attainment year for Moderate nonattainment areas. As described in more detail in the 2017 and 2018 memoranda, the EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2023 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2023 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.40) to model average and maximum design values in 2023 in order to identify potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The memorandum presents the design values in two ways: First, following the EPA's historic “3 x 3” approach to evaluating all sites, and second, following the modified approach for coastal monitoring sites in which “overwater” modeling data were not included in the calculation of future year design values.

    For purposes of identifying potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2023, the EPA applied the same approach used in the CSAPR Update, wherein the EPA considered a combination of monitoring data and modeling projections to identify monitoring sites that are projected to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites with current measured values exceeding the NAAQS that also have projected (i.e., in 2023) average design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA identified maintenance receptors as those monitoring sites with maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. This included sites with current measured values below the NAAQS with projected average and maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS, and monitoring sites with projected average design values below the NAAQS but with projected maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS. The EPA included the design values and monitoring data for all monitoring sites projected to be potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors based on the updated 2023 modeling in Attachment B to the 2018 memorandum.

    After identifying potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites, the EPA next performed nationwide, state-level ozone source-apportionment modeling to estimate the expected contribution to these nonattainment and maintenance sites from each state (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). The EPA performed air quality model runs for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The EPA included contribution information resulting from the source-apportionment modeling in Attachment C to the 2018 memorandum.

    In the CSAPR and the CSAPR Update, the EPA used a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given upwind state was “linked” at step 2 of the four-step framework and would therefore contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites (also known as receptors) identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not “linked” to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA therefore concluded the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states. However, if a state's impact exceeded the one percent threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to address the good neighbor provision. The EPA has not determined what an appropriate threshold would be for identifying at step 2 of the framework whether an upwind state is linked, and therefore contributes to a downwind air quality problem with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, as discussed in more detail below, the EPA is using a similar preliminary approach for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in reviewing Washington's SIP.

    For more specific information on the modeling and analysis, please see 2017 and 2018 memoranda, the Notice of Data Availability for the preliminary interstate transport assessment, and the supporting technical documents included in the docket for this action.

    While the 2018 memorandum presented information regarding the EPA's latest analysis of ozone transport following the approaches the EPA has taken in prior regional rulemaking actions, the EPA has not made any final determinations regarding how states should identify downwind receptors with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step framework, or what threshold should be used to identify “linked” upwind states at step 2. Rather, the EPA noted that states have flexibility in developing their own SIPs to follow somewhat different analytical approaches than the EPA, so long as their chosen approach has an adequate technical justification and is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. The 2018 memorandum therefore included as Attachment A a preliminary list of potential flexibilities that the EPA concluded may warrant further discussion as states develop good neighbor SIPs addressing the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In presenting the list, the EPA did not make any determination whether the potential flexibilities are consistent with the CAA nor did the EPA specifically recommend any particular approach.

    II. State Submittal

    On February 7, 2018, Washington submitted a SIP revision addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Washington relied upon the EPA's preliminary photochemical air quality modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, contained in the January 6, 2017 NODA discussed above, which was the most current data available at the time of Washington's submittal. Washington reviewed the EPA's preliminary 2023 modeling, determined that the future year projections are appropriate, and concurred with the EPA's preliminary photochemical modeling results, which indicate that Washington's largest contribution to potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites would be 0.15 ppb and 0.11 ppb, respectively. Washington compared these values to a screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, representing one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and concluded that emissions from Washington sources will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

    III. EPA Evaluation

    As previously discussed, the 2018 memorandum is the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. The 2018 memorandum identifies potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors, using the definitions applied in the CSAPR Update. Relevant here, the 2018 memorandum identifies 56 potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the West in Arizona (2), California (49), and Colorado (5).11 The 2018 memorandum also provides contribution data regarding the impact of other states on the potential receptors. Although the EPA has not identified a specific threshold for identifying contribution at step 2 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for purposes of evaluating Washington's 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate transport SIP submittal, we are proposing that at least where a state's contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites, it is reasonable to conclude the state's impact is not a contribution. While the EPA has indicated in Attachment A to the 2018 memorandum that states may consider alternative thresholds for identifying states that will contribute to downwind air quality problems—so long as the alternative threshold is technically justified—the EPA believes it is reasonable to continue to conclude that states with an impact below a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. This is consistent with our prior action on Washington's SIP with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and with the EPA's approach to both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR and the CSAPR Update.12

    11 As discussed above, the EPA has indicated that states may have flexibilities to follow a different analytic approach to evaluating interstate transport, including the identification of downwind air quality problems. Because the EPA is concluding that Washington will have an insignificant impact on any potential receptors identified in its analysis, it need not definitively determine whether these areas should be treated as receptors for the 2015 ozone standard.

    12 80 FR 77578 (December 15, 2015).

    The EPA's updated 2023 modeling discussed in the 2018 memorandum indicates that Washington's largest contributions to any potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptor in the West are 0.20 ppb and 0.16 ppb, respectively.13 These values are below a one percent screening threshold of 0.70 ppb, and as a result, identify no linkages between Washington and 2023 downwind potential nonattainment and maintenance sites. Washington's projected contribution to potential receptors in the East is even lower. Accordingly, we propose to conclude that emissions from Washington will not contribute to these potential receptors, and thus, the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

    13 The EPA's analysis indicates specifically that Washington will have a 0.20 ppb impact at the potential nonattainment receptor in Sacramento, California (60670012), which has a projected average design value of 74.5 ppb, a maximum design value of 75.9 ppb, and a 2014-2016 design value of 83 ppb. The EPA's analysis further indicates that Washington will have a 0.16 ppb impact at the potential maintenance receptor in Tulare, California (61072002), which has which has a projected average design value of 68.9 ppb, a maximum design value of 71.4 ppb, and a 2014-2016 design value of 80 ppb. We note that the updated methodology slightly increased Washington's modeled contribution to the projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors compared to the preliminary photochemical modeling, but, as described in this action, remain at a contribution level of less than one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

    We also note that the EPA has assessed potential transport to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation in southeast Idaho, which the EPA approved to be treated as an affected downwind state for CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the tribes do not operate an ozone monitor, the nearest ozone monitors to Fort Hall Reservation are in Ada County, Idaho; Boise area (AQS site IDs 160010010 and 160010017) and Butte County, Idaho; Idaho Falls (AQS site ID 160230101). Past and present design values for ozone are complete, valid and below the current standard. The EPA's modeled 2023 average and maximum design values suggest these ozone concentrations will continue to decline. We therefore propose to find that it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Washington will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall Reservation. A memorandum summarizing our evaluation can be found in the docket for this action.

    IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Washington concluded that emissions from the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The EPA's updated modeling, discussed in Section III confirms this finding. We are proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Chris Hladick, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15625 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0388, FRL-9980-67—Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Monitoring Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure monitoring requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0388 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Gregory, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 (73 FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of 98th percentile 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, while retaining the annual primary standard of 53 ppb. The secondary annual NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 standard at 75 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3 (78 FR 3086, Jan. 15, 2013).

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for PM2.5, Pb, NO2 and SO2 already meet those requirements. The EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Memo). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued an additional guidance document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011, “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” (2011 Memo). Most recently, the EPA issued “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).

    II. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    The EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Utah that address the infrastructure monitoring requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “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),” and these SIP submissions are to provide 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 has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA; “regional haze SIP” submissions required by the EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A; and nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.1 The EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, the EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    1 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    Examples of some of these ambiguities and the context in which the EPA interprets the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our notice of proposed rulemaking: Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, Dec. 1, 2014) under “III. What is the Scope of this Rulemaking?”

    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and the EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (“NSR Reform”).

    III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements (listed below) include requirements such as modeling, monitoring and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

    • 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.

    • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

    Of these infrastructure elements, element B is the subject of this action, as all other elements were acted on in the EPA rulemaking titled Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah.2 A detailed discussion of element 110(a)(2)(B) is contained in the next section.

    2 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016).

    IV. How did Utah address the infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ) submitted certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on January 19, 2012; 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and 2012 PM2.5 on December 4, 2015. Utah's infrastructure certifications demonstrate how the State, where applicable, has plans in place that meet the requirements of section 110 for the 2008 Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These plans reference the Utah Code Annotated (UCA) and the Utah SIP. These submittals are available within the electronic docket for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. The UCA and the Utah SIP referenced in the submittals are publicly available at http://le.utah.gov/xcode/code.html and https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/laws-and-rules/air-quality/sip/. Air pollution control regulations and statutes that have been previously approved by the EPA and incorporated into the Utah SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.2320.

    V. Analysis of the State Submittals

    Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to “provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary” to “(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.”

    The State's submissions cite UAC rule R307-110-5, which incorporates by reference SIP Section IV (Ambient Air Monitoring Program), and provides a brief description of the purposes of the air monitoring program approved by the EPA in the early 1980s and most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). Pursuant to its Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), the Department makes arrangements to operate and maintain federal reference monitors and establishes federally-approved protocols for sample collection, handling and analysis. The State's QAPP was most recently approved on November 28, 2016, with an annual update in November of 2017.

    Utah's annual monitoring network plan (AMNP), is made available by the Department for public review and comment prior to submission to the EPA. Additionally, the State of Utah submits data to the EPA's Air Quality System database in accordance with 40 CFR 58.16. Finally, Utah's 2017 AMNP was approved by the EPA through a letter dated October 27, 2017 (available within the docket). The State provides the EPA with prior notification when changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. This action proposes to approve the State's submittal in reference to element B: Ambient air quality monitoring/data system. Previous action was not taken in the final EPA ruling titled Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah.3

    3 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016).

    We find that Utah's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements and therefore propose to approve the infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for this element. Approval of element B will satisfy any outstanding requirements under Section 110(a)(2).

    VI. What proposed action is the EPA taking?

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure element B for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's certifications as shown in Table 1.

    Table 1—List of Utah Infrastructure Elements That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve Proposed for approval Element January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS (B) January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS (B) June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS (B) December 4, 2015 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (B) VII. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

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

    • Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Debra Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15480 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941; FRL-9979-23] Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of a Certain Chemical Substance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action is a notification that additional data has been added to the docket for the proposal to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl-. This action also reopens the comment period for an additional 30 days for public comments based on the additional data added to the docket. The proposal would amend the SNUR to allow certain new uses reported in the significant new use notice (SNUN) without requiring additional SNUNs and make the lack of certain worker protections a new use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0941, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected].

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substance contained in this rule. 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:

    • Manufacturers or processors of the chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    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. What action is the agency taking?

    On February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5598) (FRL-9973-02), document, EPA proposed to amend the SNUR under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA) for oxazolidine, 3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl- (40 CFR 721.10461), which was the subject of a premanufacture notice (PMN) and a significant new use notice (SNUN). The proposal would amend the SNUR to allow certain new uses reported in the SNUN without requiring additional SNUNs and make the lack of certain worker protections a new use.

    In response to public comments on the proposed SNUR, EPA has added additional information to the docket that further explains EPA's risk assessment and includes additional data used in the assessment. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 30 days to allow interested parties to consider the data and submit any additional comments.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES. If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Jeffery T. Morris, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15714 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 5, 42, and 52 [FAR Case 2017-014; Docket No. 2017-0014; Sequence No. 1] RIN 9000-AN43 Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 To Encourage Vendor Feedback AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering an amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to establish a standard survey for obtaining voluntary feedback from actual and potential offerors on Government contracts and solicitations. DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking public input, particularly from Government contractors on the potential benefits and burdens of voluntary feedback surveys.

    DATES:

    Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before September 21, 2018 to be considered in the formulation of a proposed rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by FAR Case 2017-014 by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2017-014” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2017-014”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2017-014” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Second floor, ATTN: Lois Mandell, Washington, DC 20405.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR case 2017-014” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR case 2017-014”.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In 2015, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued guidance to test use of a standard survey that allowed offerors, whether or not they received award, to rate the agency's pre-award and debriefing processes for specific solicitations. See “Acquisition 360—Improving the Acquisition Process through Timely Feedback from External and Internal Stakeholders” (March 2015) (available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/procurement/memo/acquisition-360-improving-acquisition-process-timely-feedback-external-internal-stakeholders.pdf). Under the guidance, interested offerors were invited, at their discretion, to rate and provide comments regarding the issuance of solicitations covering a wide range of requirements, including information technology, medical equipment, and management support services. Survey questions asked for input regarding satisfaction with the pre-solicitation activities, solicitation documents, evaluation criteria, and the debriefing process. To view the online survey tool with the survey questions, go to https://www.acquisition.gov/360.

    Even though the data was limited in scope some trends did emerge. For example, contractors rated the robustness of agency debriefings with the lowest satisfaction scores in both iterations. This informed OFPP's education and outreach efforts and a memorandum, “ `Myth-busting 3' Further Improving Industry Communication with Effective Debriefings”, was ultimately issued in 2017.

    OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA believe that establishing a standard process in the FAR for obtaining voluntary feedback following a contract award will provide more meaningful insight on ways to strengthen the contracting process than can be derived by relying on ad hoc or periodic agency satisfaction surveys. Accordingly, language is being considered to encourage contracting officers, in accordance with agency policy, to invite interested sources—actual and potential offerors—to provide feedback on various aspects of the pre-award acquisition process and debriefings, with a particular emphasis on how information is communicated. Submissions are intended to be anonymous and for internal Government improvements only. Voluntary participation would not bestow respondents any direct benefits or protections in the acquisition process or any subsequent protests. In addition, OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering language that would encourage Government acquisition officials to elicit feedback from their contractors on the agency's performance of its contract administration responsibilities.

    II. Request for Public Comments

    The FAR Council welcomes input on any matters related to vendor feedback, including specific examples of industry standards, alternative regulatory approaches, and legal definitions that work well in other areas. The Council also invites comment on the overall cost of complying with the Council's existing regulations and any specific regulatory requirements that are particularly burdensome. The specific survey questions to be used in conjunction with a rulemaking are posted on https://www.acquisition.gov/360.

    Respondents are encouraged to offer their feedback on the above language—as well as the underlying survey questions—in addition to the following additional questions:

    (1) What are the benefits to industry in providing actual and potential offerors with increased opportunity to submit feedback on how well the Government is performing its pre- and post-award activities? What are the benefits to the Government?

    (2) Is the approach discussed in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking the most effective way to elicit feedback about the Government's pre-award activities? If not, how might effectiveness be improved? What is the best way the Government can obtain honest and open feedback on the contract administration process?

    (3) Approximately, how long would you estimate it will take to complete the survey at https://www.acquisition.gov/360? What is a reasonable estimate of an organization's costs to complete the survey and what are the elements of this cost (e.g., personnel involved and time to complete)?

    (4) How would you quantify or otherwise describe the benefits or burdens of this type of feedback mechanism to actual and potential offerors?

    (5) Should any of the information provided by industry be available for industry review? How should the FAR Council work proactively with industry to consider changes based on any data submitted?

    (6) Is there different information which should be collected on the survey based on the type of company or the type of acquisition?

    (7) Would you view the voluntary opportunity to provide input as burden? If so, are there modifications which would decrease the burden associated with the Government collecting this information?

    (8) Would you be more likely to complete the survey if it were available as a hyperlinked button within each solicitation page of https://www.fedbizopps.gov?

    (9) What measures would help assure you that answers would remain anonymous? For example: Should the solicitation number itself and/or the specific Product Service Code (PSC) be stripped from the data agencies review? Should there be a time delay in agencies receiving survey responses? Should the Government discard survey submissions when two or fewer responses are received for a solicitation or would you prefer that the Government reviews data from all responses?

    (10) What recommendations would you advise to ensure data quality? Similar to the example above, should the Government discard survey submissions when a minimal number are received for a particular solicitation or contracting office or would you view this effort more as a forum to provide comments?

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking was determined to be significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 5, 42, and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: July 13, 2018. Cecelia Davis, Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 5, 42, and 52 to read as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 5, 42, and 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

    PART 5—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 2. Add section 5.407 to read as follows:
    5.407 Feedback on the Pre-Award Process and Debriefings

    (a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular voluntary feedback from interested sources that participate in an agency's acquisitions to understand strengths and weaknesses in how information is communicated, how acquisition techniques and methodologies were executed, and consider this feedback, as appropriate, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the acquisition process.

    (b) The contracting officer should insert the provision 52.XXX-XX, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in accordance with agency procedures.

    PART 42—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 3. Add section 42.1401 to read as follows:
    42.1401 Policy.

    (a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular and voluntary feedback from their contractors on the agency's performance of its contract administration responsibilities.

    (b) Feedback might be sought on matters such as the contractor's evaluation of the agency in terms of—

    (1) Adherence to contract terms, including the administrative aspects of performance;

    (2) Reasonable and cooperative behavior in responding to contractor communications and addressing contractor requests; and

    (3) Business-like concern for the interest of the contractor.

    (c) Agencies should consider this feedback, as appropriate, to better understand strengths and weaknesses and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their contract administration activities.

    PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Add section 52.XXX-XX to read as follows:
    52.XXX-XX Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey

    As prescribed in 5.407(b), insert the following provision:

    Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey (DATE)

    (a) All actual or prospective offerors are encouraged to provide feedback on the pre-award process, including debriefings. Feedback may be made anonymously by going to https://www.acquisition.gov/360.

    (b) None of the information provided will be reviewed until after contract award and will not be considered in nor impact source selection in any way.

    (End of provision)
    [FR Doc. 2018-15355 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
    83 141 Monday, July 23, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request July 18, 2018.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by August 22, 2018 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Endangered Species Regulations and Forfeiture Procedures

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0076

    Summary of Collection: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1513 et. seq.) directs Federal departments to utilize their authorities under the Act to conserve endangered and threatened species. Section 3 of the Act specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate such regulations as may be appropriate to enforce the Act. These regulations are contained in 7 CFR parts 355 and 356, and the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) division of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for implementing them. Specifically, Section 9(d) of the Act authorizes 7 CFR 355.11, which requires a permit to engage in the business of importing or exporting terrestrial plants listed in 50 CFR parts 17 and 23. To enforce the regulations, APHIS will collect information using several forms and activities.

    Need and use of the Information: APHIS will use the following information activities to conserve endangered and threatened species of terrestrial plants: Applications for protected plant permit, appeals of denial of general permit, marking and notification requirements, notices of arrival, notices of exportation, validation of documents, waivers of forfeiture procedures by owners of seized property, requests for return of property, petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, reports, and recordkeeping. The information provided by these information collection activities is critical to APHIS ability to carry out its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 1,097.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 15,254.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Mangoes from Australia.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0391.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C 7701—et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (Title 7, CFR 319.56) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the U.S. from certain parts of the world. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for carrying out these duties. APHIS has amended the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation into the U.S. of commercial consignments of fresh mangoes from Australia.

    Need and Use of the Information: Conditions for the importation of fresh mangoes from Australia include requirements include phytosanitary certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization of Australia with an additional declaration confirming that the mangoes have been produced in accordance with the requirements, Inspections of Sites, Inspections of mangos, Notice of Arrival, and Emergency Action Notification. APHIS will use this information to allow the importation of commercial consignments of fresh mangoes from Australia into the United States. Failing to collect this information would cripple APHIS ability to ensure that mangoes from Australia are not carrying plant pests.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 20.

    Frequency Of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 163.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15696 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 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 that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday August 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday August 9, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. CDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 877-260-1479, Conference ID: 9117641.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. 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 also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 South Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Civil Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: July 17, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15648 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Quarterly Financial Report.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0432.

    Form Number(s): QFR-200(MT), QFR-200(MG), QFR-200(S).

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: QFR-200(MT)—5,199, QFR-200(MG)—5,493, QFR-200(S)—1,559.

    Average Hours Per Response: QFR-200(MT)—3 hours, QFR-200(MG)—1.2 hours, QFR-200(S)—3 hours.

    Burden Hours: 107,462.

    Needs and Uses: The QFR program has published up-to-date aggregate statistics on the financial results and position of U.S. corporations since 1947. The program currently collects and publishes financial data for the manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, retail trade, information, and professional, scientific, and technical services (except legal) sectors. The survey is a principal economic indicator that provides financial data essential to calculation of key U.S. government measures of national economic performance. The importance of this data collection is reflected by the granting of specific authority to conduct the program in Title 13 of the United States Code, Section 91, which requires that financial statistics of business operations be collected and published quarterly. Public Law 114-72, Section 2 extended the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct the QFR program through September 30, 2030.

    The survey forms used to conduct the QFR are: QFR-200 (MT) Long Form (manufacturing, mining, wholesale trade, and retail trade); QFR-201 (MG) Short Form (manufacturing); and the QFR-300 (S) Long Form (services).

    The primary purpose of the QFR is to provide timely, accurate data on business financial conditions for use by government and private-sector organizations and individuals. The primary public users are U.S. governmental statistical agencies such as such as the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as the Federal Reserve Board. In turn, these organizations play a major role in providing guidance, advice, and support to the QFR Program. Universities, financial analysts, U.S. and foreign corporations, financial institution, unions, trade associations, and public libraries are among the diverse range of private sector entities that uses these data.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Section 91.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202)395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15686 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-47-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 64—Jacksonville, Florida; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Bacardi USA, Inc. (Kitting of Alcoholic Beverages); Jacksonville, Florida

    Bacardi USA, Inc. (Bacardi) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Jacksonville, Florida. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 13, 2018.

    Bacardi already has authority solely for the kitting of alcoholic beverages into gift sets (i.e., does not involve authority for any type of manufacturing involving alcohol prohibited by the fifth proviso of Section 81c of the FTZ Act) within Subzone 64E. The current request would add finished products and foreign status components to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bacardi from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status components noted below and in the existing scope of authority, Bacardi would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to gift packs of: Asti spumante with glasses; moscato with glasses; vermouth with glasses (all flavors); cognac with glasses; rum with glasses; gin with glasses; vodka with glasses (all flavors), and tequila with glasses (all flavors) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 0.198/PFL). Bacardi would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Asti spumante; moscatos; vermouth (all flavors); cognacs; whiskies; rums; gins; vodka (all flavors); tequila (all flavors); ice molds; stemware drinking glasses, and lead crystal glass decanters (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 28.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 4, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at [email protected] or (202) 482-1963.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15693 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-48-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 176—Rockford, Illinois; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Leading Americas Inc. (Wire Harnesses); Hampshire, Illinois

    Leading Americas Inc. (Leading Americas) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility in Hampshire, Illinois. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 16, 2018.

    The Leading Americas facility is located within Site 17 of FTZ 176. The facility is will be used for the production of wire harnesses for the forklift and heavy-duty construction equipment industries. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Leading Americas from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Leading Americas would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to wire harnesses (duty rate 3.5%). Leading America would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include electrical tape, electrical terminals, copper winding wire, electrical connectors, and flexible polyvinyl chloride tubes (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5.8%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 4, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Juanita Chen at [email protected] or 202-482-1378.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15690 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Terminating Denial Order Issued on April 15, 2018, Against Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd.

    In the Matter Of: Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, ZTE Plaza, Keji Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, China; ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd., 2/3 Floor, Suite A, Zte Communication Mansion Keji (S) Road, Hi-New Shenzhen, 518057 China

    On March 23, 2017, I signed an order (the “March 23, 2017 Order”) approving the terms of the settlement agreement entered into in early March 2017, between the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), and Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”), and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd., of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”) (the “March 2017 Settlement Agreement”), to resolve 380 violations of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”) admitted by ZTE and set forth in the Proposed Charging Letter attached to and incorporated in the March 2017 Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order.1

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2018) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR). The Regulations issued under the authority of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended. 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 16, 2017 (82 FR 39,005 (Aug. 15, 2017)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq.) (2012).

    On March 6, 2018, ZTE notified BIS that it had made false statements in letters it sent to BIS on November 30, 2016 and July 20, 2017, respectively, regarding the discipline of 39 employees involved in the violations that led to proposed charges settled through the March 2017 Settlement Agreement. After providing notice to ZTE and an opportunity to respond pursuant to the Regulations, I issued an order on April 15, 2018 (the “April 15, 2018 Order”), activating the suspended denial of export privileges set forth in the March 2017 Settlement Agreement and the March 23, 2017 Order. See 83 FR 17,644 (April 23, 2018).

    On June 8, 2018, I issued a Superseding Order approving a superseding settlement agreement between BIS and ZTE (the “Superseding Settlement Agreement”), whereby the parties agreed to additional and enhanced settlement terms and conditions, including, inter alia, the full and timely payment by ZTE of $1,000,000,000 to the Department of Commerce within 60 days of the date of the Superseding Order, and the full and timely placement of $400,000,000, within 90 days of the date of the Superseding Order, in an escrow account with a bank located and headquartered in the United States to be selected by ZTE and approved by BIS. The $400,000,000 escrow amount is the suspended portion of the $1,761,000,000 civil penalty imposed pursuant to the Superseding Settlement Agreement and the Superseding Order.2 The Superseding Order also provided, as agreed to by the parties, that BIS would terminate the denial of export privileges set forth in the April 15, 2018 Order and remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List upon ZTE's full and timely payment of the $1,000,000,000 referenced above and compliance with the escrow requirements relating to the $400,000,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty.

    2 ZTE satisfied $361,000,000 of this civil penalty amount through the payment made by ZTE on or about May 19, 2017, following issuance of the March 23, 2017 Order.

    ZTE has made full and timely payment of the $1,000,000,000 and has complied with the escrow requirements relating to the $400,000,000 suspended portion of the civil penalty. Therefore, BIS is hereby terminating the April 15, 2018 Order, and BIS will remove ZTE from the Denied Persons List.

    This Order does not modify any provision of the Superseding Order or the Superseding Settlement Agreement. Under the terms of the Superseding Settlement Agreement and Superseding Order, if ZTE does not fully and timely comply with all other probationary conditions set forth in the Superseding Settlement Agreement and Superseding Order during the ten-year probationary period, the $400,000,000 suspended portion of the BIS civil penalty may immediately become due and owing in full or in part, at BIS's discretion, and the suspended denial order may be modified or revoked by BIS and a denial order including a ten-year denial period activated against ZTE from the date that it is determined that ZTE has failed to comply.

    This Order is effective immediately and shall be served on ZTE and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Issued this day of July 13, 2018. Richard R. Majauskas, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15633 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Notice of Partially Closed Meeting: Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee

    The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on August 7, 2018, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW, Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening remarks and introductions.

    2. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.

    3. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.

    4. TAC Membership.

    5. Proposed Cyber Rule circulated 6/12/18.

    6. TAC Meeting Attendance.

    7. Coordinate TAC Project—Draft Announcement.

    8. Industry 4.0 and New Technologies.

    Closed Session

    9. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Joanna Lewis at [email protected], no later than July 31, 2018.

    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Lewis via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Joanna Lewis at (202) 482-6440.

    Joanna Lewis, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15675 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    Title: Domestic and International Client Export Services and Customized Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0143.

    Form Number(s): ITA-4096P.

    Type of Request: Renewal submission.

    Number of Respondents: 200,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 33,333 (annual).

    Needs and Uses: The International Trade Administration's (ITA) U.S. Commercial Service (CS) is mandated by Congress to broaden and deepen the U.S. exporter base. The CS accomplishes this by providing counseling, programs and services to help U.S. organizations export and conduct business in overseas markets. This information collection package enables the CS to provide appropriate export services to U.S. exporters and international buyers.

    The Commercial Service (CS) offers a variety of services to enable clients to begin exporting/importing or to expand existing exporting/importing efforts. Clients may learn about our services from business related entities such as the National Association of Manufacturers, Federal Express, State Economic Development offices, the internet or word of mouth. The CS provides a standard set of services to assist clients with identifying potential overseas partners, establishing meeting programs with appropriate overseas business contacts and providing due diligence reports on potential overseas business partners. The CS also provides other export-related services considered to be of a “customized nature” because they do not fit into the standard set of CS export services, but are driven by unique business needs of individual clients.

    The dissemination of international market information and potential business opportunities for U.S. exporters are critical components of the Commercial Service's export assistance programs and services. U.S. companies conveniently access and indicate their interest in these services by completing the appropriate forms via ITA and CS U.S. Export Assistance Center websites.

    The CS works closely with clients to educate them about the exporting/importing process and to help prepare them for exporting/importing. When a client is ready to begin the exporting/importing process our field staff provide counseling to assist in the development of an exporting strategy. We provide fee-based, export-related services designed to help client export/import. The type of export-related service that is proposed to a client depends upon a client's business goals and where they are in the export/import process. Some clients are at the beginning of the export process and require assistance with identifying potential distributors, whereas other clients may be ready to sign a contract with a potential distributor and require due diligence assistance.

    Before the CS can provide export-related services to clients, such as assistance with identifying potential partners or providing due diligence, specific information is required to determine the client's business objectives and needs. For example, before we can provide a service to identify potential business partners we need to know whether the client would like a potential partner to have specific technical qualifications, coverage in a specific market, English or foreign language ability or warehousing requirements. This information collection is designed to elicit such data so that appropriate services can be proposed and conducted to most effectively meet the client's exporting goals. Without these forms the CS is unable to provide services when requested by clients.

    The forms ask U.S. exporters standard questions about their company details, export experience, information about the products or services they wish to export and exporting goals. A few questions are tailored to a specific program type and will vary slightly with each program. CS staff use this information to gain an understanding of client's needs and objectives so that they can provide appropriate and effective export assistance tailored to an exporter's particular requirements.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; and Federal government.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, Department Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15657 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-971] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Correction to Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis McClure, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5973.

    Correction to Final Results: On June 14, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register the Final Results of the 2015 administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) Order1 on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (China).2 Subsequently, we received a timely filed allegation that the name for one non-selected company was inadvertently misspelled.3 Specifically, the published Federal Register notice contained a ministerial error in that it included an exporter's name that was misspelled as Baishan Huafeng Wood Product Co., Ltd. The correct spelling of this exporter's name is Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd. Pursuant to section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce shall correct any ministerial errors within a reasonable time after the determinations are issued under this section. A ministerial error is defined at 19 CFR 351.224(f) as an error “in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error. . .” Therefore, we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review covering the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. This notice serves to correct the misspelled exporter company name listed in the Final Results. No other changes have been made to the Final Results.

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 FR 76692 (December 8, 2011); see also Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Amended Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 77 FR 5484 (February 3, 2012), wherein the scope of the Order was modified (collectively, Order).

    2See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015, 83 FR 27750 (June 14, 2018).

    3See Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd.'s Letter, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the PRC: Request for Correction of Ministerial Error in Company Name on Behalf of Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd.,” dated June 15, 2018.

    These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(h), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: July 17, 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. 2018-15689 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: 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 Canadian Solar Inc. and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, Canadian Solar) and Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates (collectively, Trina Solar), exporters/producers of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China), received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 23, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone; (202) 482-3586.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review on January 10, 2018.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On March 5, 2018, we received timely case briefs from the following interested parties: SolarWorld Americas Inc. (the petitioner), the Government of China (GOC), Canadian Solar, and Trina Solar.2 On March 12, 2018, we received timely rebuttal comments from the petitioner; the GOC; Canadian Solar; Trina Solar; and Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd. (Sumec).3

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, and Rescission of Review, in Part; 2015, 83 FR 1235 (January 10, 2018) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Letter from the petitioner, “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China; Case Brief of SolarWorld Americas, Inc.,” dated March 5, 2018 (Petitioner's Case Brief); Letter from the GOC, “GOC Administrative Case Brief: Fourth Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China (C-570-980),” dated March 5, 2018 (GOC's Case Brief); Letter from Canadian Solar, “Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief,” dated March 5, 2018 (Canadian Solar's Case Brief); and Letter from Trina Solar, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief,” dated March 5, 2018 (Trina Solar's Case Brief).

    3 See Letter from the petitioner, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief of SolarWorld Americas, Inc.,” dated March 12, 2018. (Petitioner's Rebuttal Brief); Letter from the GOC, “GOC Rebuttal Brief: Fourth Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China (C-570-980),” dated March 12, 2018 (GOC's Rebuttal Brief); Letter from Canadian Solar, “Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled in Modules from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Case Brief,” dated March 12, 2018. (Canadian Solar's Rebuttal Brief); Letter from Trina Solar, ”Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,” dated March 12, 2018 (Trina Solar's Rebuttal Brief); and Letter from Sumec, “SHTC Letter in Lieu of Rebuttal Brief: Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China,” dated March 12, 2018. In its letter, Sumec submits that Commerce should adopt the positions put forward in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by Canadian Solar and Trina Solar.

    Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through January 22, 2018.4 As a result, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days. On May 11, 2018, we extended the deadline for issuing the final results of this administrative review by 45 days, to June 27, 2018.5 On June 21, 2018, we extended the period for issuing the final results by an additional 15 days, to July 12, 2018.6

    4See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018.

    5See Memorandum, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 2015 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,” dated May 11, 2018.

    6See Memorandum, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Section Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 2015 Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,” dated June 21, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are solar cells from China. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.7

    7See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China; 2015,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in interested parties' briefs are listed in the Appendix to this notice and are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and all supporting documentation, we made changes from the Preliminary Results. For the final results, we are relying solely on Maersk ocean freight prices to value international freight when constructing our benchmarks for measuring the adequacy of remuneration for the company respondents' input purchases. We also corrected certain clerical errors made in our calculations.8

    8See the Issues and Decision Memorandum for a full discussion of the changes made since the Preliminary Results.

    Methodology

    Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as mended (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.9 For a full description of the methodology underlying all of Commerce's conclusions, including any determination that relied upon the use of facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See section 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 calculated a countervailable subsidy rate for the two mandatory respondents, Canadian Solar and Trina Solar. For the non-selected companies subject to this review, we followed out practice, which is to base the subsidy rates on an average of the subsidy rates calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis rates or rates based entirely on adverse facts available.10 In this case, for the non-selected companies, we calculated a rate by weight-averaging the calculated subsidy rates of the two mandatory respondents using their publicly-ranged sales data for exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We find the countervailable subsidy rates for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:

    10See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 18806, 18811 (April 13, 2010), unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the 13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 37386 (June 29, 2010); see also Issues and Decision Memorandum at the section, “Non-Selected Companies Under Review.”

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent
  • ad valorem)
  • Canadian Solar and its Cross-Owned Affiliates 11 14.34 Trina Solar and its Cross-Owned Affiliates 12 11.39

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Non-Selected Companies Subject to this Review:

    11 Cross-owned affiliates are: Canadian Solar Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc.; Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc.; CSI Cells Co., Ltd.; CSI Solar Power (China) Inc.; CSI Solartronics (Changshu) Co., Ltd.; CSI Solar Technologies Inc.; CSI Solar Manufacture Inc. (name was changed to CSI New Energy Holding Co., Ltd. in July 2015); CSI-GCL Solar Manufacturing (Yancheng) Co., Ltd.; Changshu Tegu New Materials Technology Co., Ltd.; Changshu Tlian Co., Ltd.; and Suzhou Sanysolar Materials Technology Co., Ltd. See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    12 Cross-owned affiliates are: Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd.; Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd.; Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd.; and Changzhou Trina PV Ribbon Materials Co., Ltd.

    Producer/exporter Subsidy rate
  • (percent
  • ad valorem)
  • Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd 13.20 Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 Canadian Solar International, Ltd 13.20 Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 13.20 Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd 13.20 ERA Solar Co., Ltd 13.20 ET Solar Energy Limited 13.20 ET Solar Industry Limited 13.20 Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd 13.20 Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd 13.20 Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co., Ltd 13.20 Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd 13.20 Jiangsu High Hope Int'l Group 13.20 Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd 13.20 Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 13.20 JingAo Solar Co., Ltd 13.20 Jinko Solar Co., Ltd 13.20 Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd 13.20 Jinko Solar International Limited 13.20 Jinko Solar (U.S.) Inc 13.20 Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd 13.20 Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd 13.20 Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 13.20 Risen Energy Co., Ltd 13.20 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 13.20 Shenzhen Glory Industries Co., Ltd 13.20 Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd 13.20 Sumec Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd 13.20 Systemes Versilis, Inc 13.20 Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd 13.20 tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 13.20 Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 13.20 Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd 13.20 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 13.20 Yingli Energy (China) Co., Ltd 13.20 Zhejiang Era Solar Technology Co., Ltd 13.20 Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd 13.20 Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company 13.20
    Disclosure

    We will disclose to the parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for these final results within five days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.13

    13See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we intend to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by the companies listed above, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at the ad valorem rates listed above.

    Cash Deposit Instructions

    In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, we intend to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each of the respective companies listed above. 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 of an APO is an sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    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—Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. List of Interested Party Comments IV. Scope of the Order V. Changes Since the Preliminary Results VI. Non-Selected Companies Under Review VII. Subsidies Valuation Information VIII. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences IX. Programs Determined to be Countervailable X. Program Determined to be Not Countervailable During the POR XI. Programs Determined to be Not Used or Not To Confer a Measurable Benefit During the POR XII. Analysis of Comments XIII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-15692 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Interim Procedures for Considering Requests Under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States—Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (U.S.-Colombia TPA) AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Laurie Mease, Office of Textiles and Apparel, Telephone: 202-482-2043, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Title II, Section 203(o) of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) [Pub. L. 112-42] implements the commercial availability provision provided for in Article 3.3 of the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement entered into force on May 15, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, fabric, yarn, and fiber produced in Colombia or the United States and traded between the two countries are entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3-B of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Colombia or the United States. The fabrics listed are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers, which are also entitled to duty-free treatment despite not being produced in Colombia or the United States.

    The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Colombia or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B of the Agreement.

    Chapter 3, Article 3.3, paragraph 7 of the Agreement requires that the President “promptly” publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests. Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Colombia as set out in Annex 3-B of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8818, 77 FR 29519, May 18, 2012).

    The intent of the U.S.-Colombia TPA Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests, responses and rebuttals; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.

    CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Colombian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Colombia, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.

    II. Method of Collection

    Participants in a commercial availability proceeding must submit public versions of their Requests, Responses or Rebuttals electronically (via email) for posting on OTEXA's website. Confidential versions of those submissions which contain business confidential information must be delivered in hard copy to the Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0272.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours per Request, 2 hours per Response, and 1 hour per Rebuttal.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 89.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $5,340.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15691 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG351 Permits; Foreign Fishing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of application for permit; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a permit application for transshipment of Atlantic herring by Canadian vessels, submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary for NMFS to make a determination that the permit application can be approved.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by August 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on this action, identified by RIN 0648-XG351, should be sent to Kent Laborde in the NMFS Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kent Laborde at (301) 427-8364 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 204(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue a transshipment permit authorizing a vessel other than a vessel of the United States to engage in fishing consisting solely of transporting fish or fish products at sea from a point within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or, with the concurrence of a state, within the boundaries of that state, to a point outside the United States. In addition, Public Law 104-297, section 105(e), directs the Secretary to issue section 204(d) permits to up to 14 Canadian transport vessels that are not equipped for fish harvesting or processing, for the transshipment of Atlantic herring harvested by United States fishermen and to be used solely in sardine processing. Transshipment must occur from within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69 degrees 30 minutes west and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.

    Section 204(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application may not be approved until the Secretary determines that no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates. NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.

    Summary of Application

    NMFS received an application requesting authorization for four Canadian transport vessels to receive transfers of herring from United States purse seine vessels, stop seines, and weirs for the purpose of transporting the herring to Canada for sardine processing. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine or within the portion of the EEZ east of the line 69° 30′ W longitude and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. John Henderschedt, Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15634 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG329 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Operations Committee to address development of the Citizen Science Program Standard Operating Policies and Procedures.

    DATES:

    The Citizen Science Operations Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 8, 2018, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. and on Thursday, August 9, 2018, from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Council office, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop recommendations on program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.

    The Citizen Science Program Blueprint, a framework document outlining the organizational structure of the Program, identified a Citizen Science Operations was needed to develop Standard Operations Policies and Procedures (SOPPs) for the Citizen Science Program. Recommendations from the Citizen Science Action Teams would be used to develop the SOPPs. The Council appointed members to the Citizen Science Operations Committee in June 2018 and the Operations Committee will meet to develop Program SOPPs that will be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee for adoption.

    Items to be addressed during this meeting:

    1. Citizen Science Program Overview 2. Development of Citizen Science Program SOPPs 3. Transition Plan for Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool and Action Teams 4. Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 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 18, 2018. Rey Israel Marquez, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15663 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG350 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Acting Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would exempt eight commercial fishing vessels from limited access sea scallop regulations in support of a study on seasonal bycatch distribution and optimal scallop meat yield on Georges Bank. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. Include in the subject line “DA18-051 CFF Georges Bank Optimization Study EFP.”

    Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “DA18-051 CFF Georges Bank Optimization Study EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Coonamesset Farm Foundation (CFF) submitted an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application in support of a project titled “Optimizing the Georges Bank Scallop Fishery by Maximizing Meat Yield and Minimizing Bycatch,” that has been funded under the 2018 Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program. The project will evaluate seasonal distribution of bycatch on the eastern part of Georges Bank in relation to sea scallop meat weight yield. Additional objectives include testing of a modified scallop dredge bag design to reduce flatfish bycatch and collecting biological samples to examine scallop meat quality and yellowtail flounder liver disease. Project investigators working on this project would also work with New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHFG) and the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association (AOLA) to tag female lobsters.

    To enable this research, CFF is requesting exemptions for eight commercial fishing vessels from the Atlantic sea scallop days-at-sea (DAS) allocations at 50 CFR 648.53(b); crew size restrictions at § 648.51(c); observer program requirements at § 648.11(g); Closed Area II (CAII) scallop gear restrictions specified at § 648.81(b); and access area program requirements at § 648.59(a)(1)-(3), (b)(2), (b)(4), and Closed Area II Scallop Access Area Seasonal Closure at § 648.60(d)(2). CFF has also requested that vessels be exempt from possession limits and minimum size requirements specified in part 648, subsections B and D through O for biological sampling, and § 697.20 for lobster sampling and tagging purposes only.

    Participating vessels would conduct scallop dredging from August 2018 through June 2019. Vessels would conduct a total of eight 7-day trips, for a total of 56 DAS. Closed Area II Access Area tows would take place in the central portion situated below the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area, including the Atlantic Sea Closed Area II Scallop Access Area Seasonal Closure. Open area tows would be conducted on the western and southern boundaries of Closed Area II. The applicant also requested to conduct tows inside the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. This area remains closed to bottom-tending mobile gear to protect sensitive benthic habitat under Omnibus Habitat Amendment II. Consequently, NMFS does not intend to support the applicant's request to access the Habitat Closure Area.

    There is a potential for gear conflict with lobster gear in the central portion of Closed Area II. In an effort to help mitigate gear interactions, CFF would distribute the time and location of stations to the lobster industry, work only during daylight hours, post an extra lookout to avoid gear, and actively avoid tangling in stationary gear. The project would work in cooperation in with NHFG and AOLA to tag lobsters with the primary goal of documenting their movement on and off Georges Bank. The applicant states that data from the tagging project could also help answer questions of lobster discard mortality in the scallop fishery.

    All tows would be conducted with two 15-foot (4.6-m) turtle deflector dredges for a duration of 30 minutes using an average tow speed of 4.8 knots. One dredge would be rigged with a 7-row apron and twine top hanging ratio of 2:1, while the other dredge would be rigged with a 5-row, extended link apron and 1.5:1 twine top hanging ratio. Both dredge frames would be rigged with identical rock and tickler chain configurations, 10-inch (25.4-cm) twine top, and 4-inch (10.2-cm) ring bag. Gear comparison data will help improve efforts to reduce scallop dredge bycatch. Dredge gear would conform to scallop gear regulations.

    For all tows, the entire sea scallop catch would be counted into baskets and weighed. One basket from each dredge would be randomly selected, and the scallops would be measured in 5-milimeter increments to determine size selectivity. All finfish catch would be sorted by species and then counted and measured. Weight, sex, and reproductive state would be determined for a random subsample (n=10) of yellowtail, winter, and windowpane flounders. Lobsters would be measured, sexed, and evaluated for damage and shell disease. No catch would be retained for longer than needed to conduct sampling, and no finfish or lobsters would be landed for sale. All catch estimates for the project are listed in Table 1, below.

    Table 1—Coonamessett Farm Foundation Georges Bank Scallop Research Project Common name Scientific name Estimated
  • weight
  • (lb) *
  • Estimated
  • weight
  • (kg)
  • Sea Scallop Placopecten magellanicus 33,103 15, 015 Yellowtail Flounder Limanda ferruginea 1,097 498 Winter Flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus 1,605 728 Windowpane Flounder Scophthalmus aquosus 5,656 2,566 Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus 1,886 855 Fourspot Flounder Paralichthys oblongus 148 67 American Plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides 180 82 Grey Sole Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 24 11 Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 116 53 Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua 199 90 Monkfish Lophius americanus 16,839 7,638 Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias 173 78 Barndoor Skates Dipturus laevis 2,217 1,006 NE Skate Complex (excluding barndoor skate) Leucoraja erinacea, Leucoraja ocellata 127,055 57,631 American lobster Homarus americanus 1,000 ** * Weights estimated using catch from a similar 2016 project. ** Number of individual animals estimated to be caught.

    The applicant states that the exemptions are necessary to allow them to conduct experimental dredge towing without being charged DAS, as well as deploy gear in areas that are currently closed to scallop fishing. Participating vessels need crew size waivers to accommodate science personnel. Exemptions from possession limits would allow researchers to sample finfish and lobster catch that exceeds possession limits or prohibitions. The project would be exempt from the sea scallop observer program requirements because activities conducted on the trip are not consistent with normal fishing operations. Researchers from CFF will accompany each trip taken under the EFP. The goal of the proposed work is to provide information on spatial and temporal patterns in bycatch rates in the scallop fishery, with the objective of identifying mechanisms to mitigate bycatch. The data collected would enhance understanding of bycatch and scallop yield as they relate to access and open area management.

    If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15724 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Third-Party Submissions and Protests

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Agency: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    Title: Third-Party Submissions and Protests.

    OMB Control Number: 0651-0062.

    Form Number(s):

    • PTO/SB/429

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Number of Respondents: 1,450 responses.

    Average Hours per Response: 14,500 hours.

    Cost Burden: $74,160.

    Needs and Uses: The public uses this information collection to contribute submissions and protests to the quality of issued patents. The USPTO will use this information, as appropriate, during the patent examination process to assist in evaluating the patent application.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas A. Fraser, email: [email protected] Once submitted, the request will be publicly available in electronic format through www.regino.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Further information can be obtained by:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0651-0062 copy request” in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before August 22, 2018 to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB Desk Officer, via email to [email protected], or by fax to 202-395-5167, marked to the attention of Nicholas A. Fraser.

    Marcie Lovett, Director, Records & Information Governance Division (RIGD), Office of the Chief Technology Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15611 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Fee Deficiency Submissions AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed collection, comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to comment on the proposed renewal of this information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include “0070 Fee Deficiency Submissions” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Mail: Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313- 1450; by telephone at 571-272-7728; or by email at [email protected] with “Information Collection: 0070” in the subject line. Additional information about this collection is also available at http://www.reginfo.gov under “Information Collection Review.”

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Act”) was enacted into law on September 16, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 283 (2011)). Under section 10(b) of the Act, eligible small entities shall receive a 50 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents. The Act further provides that micro entities shall receive a 75 percent fee reduction from the undiscounted fees for filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.

    This information collection covers the submissions made by patent applicants and patentees to excuse fee payment errors that result from changes in their small or micro entity status, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 37 CFR 1.28(c) and 1.29(k). Specifically, 37 CFR 1.28(c) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the small entity amount. 37 CFR 1.29(k) provides a procedure by which patent applicants and patentees may be excused for erroneous payments of fees in the micro entity amount.

    Applicants who change their entity status may need to submit additional payments in order to have their applications associated with the correct category. A small or micro entity can be established in good faith, and a patent applicant pay a maintenance fee as a small or micro entity in good faith but later discover that such status was established in error or that through errors USPTO was not notified of a loss of entitlement to such status. The USPTO will excuse the error if a deficiency payment and other requirements are submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.28(c) or 1.29(k). This is known as a “1.28(c) petition” or “1.29(k) petition.”

    Thus, this information collection is necessary so that patent applicants and patentees may pay the balance of fees due (i.e., fee deficiency payment) in instances when the micro or small entity fee amount was paid in error. The USPTO requires the information in order to process and properly record a fee deficiency payment, and to avoid questions arising later, either for the USPTO or for the applicant or patentee as to whether the proper fees have been paid in the application or patent. Failure to correct to the error in entity status will result in the charging of patent application fees that correspond with the correct entity status at the discretion of the Agency. If these fees are not paid, patent protection lapses and rights provided by the patent are no longer enforceable.

    II. Method of Collection

    The items in this collection may be submitted online using EFS-Web, the USPTO's Web-based electronic filing system, or on paper by either mail or hand delivery.

    III. Data

    OMB Number: 0651-0070.

    IC Instruments: There are no forms in this collection.

    Type of Review: Renewal of a previously existing information collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,500 responses per year. Of this total, the USPTO expects that 2,450 responses will be submitted electronically through EFS-Web and 50 will be submitted on paper.

    Estimated Time per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 2 hours to submit the information in this collection, including the time to gather the necessary information, prepare the appropriate form or petition, and submit the completed request to the USPTO.

    The time per response, estimated annual responses, and estimated annual hour burden associated with each instrument in this information collection is shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,000 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Hourly): $2,190,000.00. The USPTO expects that attorneys will complete the instruments associated with this information collection. The professional hourly rate used for the calculation is the $438 average rate for attorneys in private firms as published in the 2017 Report of the Economic Survey by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). Using this hourly rate, the USPTO estimates $2,190,000.00 per year for the total hourly costs associated with respondents.

    IC No. Information collection instrument Estimated time
  • for response
  • (hours)
  • Estimated
  • annual
  • responses
  • Estimated annual
  • burden hours
  • Rate
  • ($/hr)
  • Total cost
  • ($/hr)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) (d) (c) × (d) = (e) 1 Submissions Under 37 CFR 1.28(c) 2 1,875 3,750 $438.00 $1,642,500.00 2 Submissions Under 37 CFR 1.29(k) 2 625 1,250 438.00 547,500.00 Total 2,500 5,000 2,190,000.00

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden (Non-Hourly): $335.00. There are no capital startup, maintenance, or operating fees are associated with this collection. There are, however, postage costs associated with this collection. Specifically, customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the average first class postage cost for a one-pound, priority mail submission will be $6.70 and approximately 60 submissions will be submitted to the USPTO requiring postage.

    IC No. Information collection instrument Responses
  • (yr)
  • Postage costs Total non-hour
  • cost burden
  • (yr)
  • (a) (b) (a) × (b) = (c) 1 Submissions Under 37 CFR 1.28(c) 38 $6.70 $254.60 2 Submissions Under 37 CFR 1.29(k) 12 6.70 80.40 Total 50 335.00

    Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the total annual (non-hour) cost burden for this collection, in the form of postage costs is $335.00 per year.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 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 on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Marcie Lovett, Director, Records and Information Governance Division, Office of the Chief Technology Officer, USPTO.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15612 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Defense Science Board, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Science Board (DSB) will take place.

    DATES:

    July 18, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.-July 19, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Executive Conference Center, 4075 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Defense Science Board Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Mr. Edward C. Gliot, (703) 571-0079 (Voice), (703) 697-1860 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B888A, Washington, DC 20301-3140. Website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the meeting on July 18 through 19, 2018, of the Defense Science Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix), the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The mission of the DSB is to provide independent advice and technical enterprise. The objective of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the DSB's mission. The meeting will focus on the DSB's 2018 Summer Study on Strategic Surprise tasking, to include DoD dependence on the U.S. electric power grid, homeland air defense, maritime situational awareness, threats and promise of biotechnology, countering autonomous systems, technical approaches to counter-intelligence, resilient positioning, navigation and timing, various undersea issues, gray zone conflict, resilience of the defense industrial base, and logistics.

    Agenda: The DSB meeting will begin on Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. with opening remarks from Mr. Edward Gliot, DSB Executive Director, Dr. Craig Fields, DSB Chairman and Dr. Eric Evans, Vice Chairman. Following opening remarks, DSB members will hold classified small group discussions covering DoD dependence on the U.S. electric power grid, homeland air defense, maritime situational awareness, threats and promises of biotechnology, countering autonomous systems, technical approaches to counter-intelligence, resilient positioning, navigation and timing, various undersea issues, gray zone conflict, resilience of the defense industrial base, and logistics. After break, DSB members will hold classified discussions covering DoD dependence on the U.S. electric power grid, homeland air defense, maritime situational awareness, threats and promises of biotechnology, countering autonomous systems, technical approaches to counter-intelligence, resilient positioning, navigation and timing, various undersea issues, gray zone conflict, resilience of the defense industrial base, and logistics. The meeting will adjourn at 5:00 p.m. On the second day of the meeting, Thursday, July 19, 2018, the day will begin at 8:00 a.m. with a classified session covering DoD dependence on the U.S. electric power grid, homeland air defense, maritime situational awareness, threats and promises of biotechnology, countering autonomous systems, technical approaches to counter-intelligence, resilient positioning, navigation and timing, various undersea issues, gray zone conflict, resilience of the defense industrial base, and logistics. After break, the classified discussion will continue on the same topics. The meeting will adjourn at 3:00 p.m.

    Meeting Accessibility: In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the DSB meeting will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in consultation with the DoD Office of General Counsel, has determined in writing that the meeting will be closed to the public because it will consider matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). The determination is based on the consideration that it is expected that discussions throughout will involve classified matters of national security concern. Such classified material is so intertwined with the unclassified material that it cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without defeating the effectiveness and meaning of the overall meetings. To permit the meeting to be open to the public would preclude discussion of such matters and would greatly diminish the ultimate utility of the DSB's findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.

    Written Statements: In accordance with section 10(a)(3)of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the DSB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement to the DSB DFO provided above at any point; however, if a written statement is not received at least three calendar days prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DSB until a later date.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Shelly E. Finke, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15674 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-18-000] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gateway Expansion Project, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Gateway Expansion Project, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to modify certain facilities in Essex and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, to increase the firm transportation capacity on the existing pipeline to allow greater access to natural gas supplies. The proposed modifications would occur within existing facilities, with no new permanent right-of-way.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Gateway Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The proposed Gateway Expansion Project includes the following facilities:

    Essex County Compressor Station 303

    • Expansion of the building and installation of a 33,000 horsepower electric-motor driven compression unit and ancillary equipment; and

    • extension of security fencing and access to new equipment.

    Roseland Meter and Regulator

    • Installation of a 36-inch-diameter Main Line block valve with automation controls.

    Roseland Electric Substation

    • Installation of an electric transformer unit.

    Passaic County Paterson Meter and Regulator

    • Replacing the existing 12-inch-diameter headers with two new 6-inch-diameter ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment; and

    • installation of ancillary equipment.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 16, 2018.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP18-18-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP18-18). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15697 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-66-000.

    Applicants: Alpine High Pipeline LP.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e)+(g): Notice of Name Change and Revision to Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 7/2/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 201807165056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-979-000.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Tariff Waiver—ROFR Posting.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15705 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF18-5-000] Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Turnpike-Palmetto Road Relocation Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 16, 2018.

    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission staff will consider all comments filed during the preparation of the EA.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on May 4, 2018, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. PF18-5-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF18-5-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    FGT plans to abandon approximately 19.1 miles of existing 18-inch-diameter mainline pipeline and relocate and construct approximately 15.4 miles of 24-inch-diameter mainline pipeline and appurtenances in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida. FGT also plans to modify existing lateral interconnects from the 18-inch-diameter mainline pipeline to the planned 24-inch-mainline pipeline.

    This Project is designed to resolve direct conflicts with proposed Florida Department of Transportation construction and operation of express lanes along 21 miles of State Road 826/Palmetto Expressway and State Road 91/Florida Turnpike and the proposed system-to-system connection between the Palmetto Expressway, Interstate 95, and the Florida Turnpike.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandonment and construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 433.3 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines. Following construction, FGT would maintain about 131.7 acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. All of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road rights-of-way.

    The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • Geology and soils;

    • land use;

    • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

    • cultural resources;

    • vegetation and wildlife;

    • air quality and noise;

    • endangered and threatened species;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts.

    Commission staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary.2 The Commission will publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. Commission staff will consider and address all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    2 For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 Commission staff will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). The EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that information related to this environmental review is sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of a CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once FGT files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project, after which the Commission will issue a public notice that establishes an intervention deadline.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number in the “Docket Number” field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF18-5). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15703 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-123-000.

    Applicants: Ninnescah Wind Energy, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC, Pratt Wind, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Ninnescah Wind Energy, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-107-000.

    Applicants: Cypress Creek Fund 11 Tenant, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Cypress Creek Fund 11 Tenant, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: EG18-108-000.

    Applicants: Brantley Farm Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Brantley Farm Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1498-005.

    Applicants: Rockford Power II, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Refund Reports—Informational Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1499-005.

    Applicants: Rockford Power, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Refund Reports—Informational Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/16/18.

    Accession Number: 20180716-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2026-000.

    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Formulary Rate Tariff to be effective 9/17/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5038.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2027-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Modify Mitigation Methodology for Locally-Committed Resources to be effective 12/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2028-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT, Sch. 12—Appx A (Dominion) re: b2373 cost allocation to be effective 5/25/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2029-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service Agmt AltaGas Power Holdings (U.S.) Inc to be effective 7/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2030-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to SPP's Market Settlements RNU Rounding Process to be effective 5/1/2019.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15704 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL01-88-021] Notice of Compliance Filing: Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Entergy Services, Inc.

    Take notice that on July 16, 2018, Entergy Services, Inc., agent on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies,1 submitted a bandwidth compliance filing pursuant to the Order on Initial Decision issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 2 and the Commission's letter order accepting a partial settlement agreement.3

    1 Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc.

    2Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Entergy Services, Inc., 163 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2018).

    3La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Entergy Services, Inc., 156 FERC ¶ 61,101 (2016).

    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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

    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 August 6, 2018.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15698 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. EL16-49-000, ER18-1314-000, ER18-1314-001, EL18-178-000 (Consolidated), EL18-169-000] Notice of Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional Calpine Corporation, Dynegy Inc., Eastern Generation, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P., NRG Power Marketing LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Carroll County Energy LLC, C.P. Crane LLC, Essential Power, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P., GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA, Inc., Oregon Clean Energy, LLC and Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC

    v.

    PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., CPV Power Holdings, L.P., Calpine Corporation and Eastern Generation, LLC

    v.

    PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission on June 29, 2018,1 the following staff of the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Energy Market Regulation, and the Office of Energy Policy and Innovation are hereby designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in these dockets. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2017), they will not serve as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2201 (2017), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory staff concerning any deliberations in these dockets.

    1Calpine Corp, et al., 163 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2018).

    Matthew Estes Kristopher Fitzpatrick Emma Nicholson Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15699 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-17-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-576); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-576, Report of Service Interruptions.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due September 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-17-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-576, Report of Service Interruptions.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0004.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-576 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: A natural gas company must obtain Commission authorization to engage in the transportation, sale, or exchange of natural gas in interstate commerce under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).1 The NGA also empowers the Commission to oversee continuity of service in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. The information collected under FERC-576 notifies the Commission of: (1) Damage to jurisdictional natural gas facilities as a result of a hurricane, earthquake, or other natural disaster, or terrorist activity, (2) serious interruptions to service, and (3) damage to jurisdictional natural gas facilities due to natural disaster or terrorist activity, that creates the potential for serious delivery problems on the pipeline's own system or the pipeline grid.

    1 Public Law 75 688; 15 U.S.C. 717 & 717w.

    Filings (in accordance with the provisions of section 4(d) of the NGA) 2 must contain information necessary to advise the Commission when a change in service has occurred. Section 7(d) of the NGA 3 authorizes the Commission to issue a temporary certificate in cases of emergency to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing.

    2 (15 U.S.C. 717c).

    3 (15 U.S.C. 717f).

    Respondents to the FERC-576 are encouraged to submit the reports by email to [email protected] but also have the option of faxing the reports to the Director of the Division of Pipeline Certificates. 18 CFR 260.9(b) requires that a report of service interruption or damage to natural gas facilities state: (1) The location of the service interruption or damage to natural gas pipeline or storage facilities; (2) The nature of any damage to pipeline or storage facilities; (3) Specific identification of the facilities damaged; (4) The time the service interruption or damage to the facilities occurred; (5) The customers affected by the service interruption or damage to the facilities; (6) Emergency actions taken to maintain service; and (7) Company contact and telephone number. The Commission may contact pipelines reporting damage or other pipelines to determine availability of supply, and if necessary, authorize transportation or construction of facilities to alleviate constraints in response to these reports.

    A report required by 18 CFR 260.9(a)(1)(i) of damage to natural gas facilities resulting in loss of pipeline throughput or storage deliverability shall be reported to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates at the earliest feasible time when pipeline throughput or storage deliverability has been restored.

    In any instance in which an incident or damage report involving jurisdictional natural gas facilities is required by Department of Transportation (DOT) reporting requirements under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, a copy of such report shall be submitted to the Director of the Commission's Division of Pipeline Certificates, within 30 days of the reportable incident.4

    4 18 CFR 260.9(d)

    If the Commission failed to collect these data, it would lose the ability to monitor and evaluate transactions, operations, and reliability of interstate pipelines and perform its regulatory functions. These reports are kept by the Commission Staff as non-public information and are not made part of the public record.

    Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:5 The Commission estimates the total annual burden and cost 6 for the information collection as follows.

    5 “Burden” is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    6 Costs (for wages and benefits) are based on wage figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for May 2017 (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits information (for December 2017, issued March 20, 2018, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). Commission staff estimates that 20% of the work is performed by a manager, and 80% is performed by legal staff members. The hourly costs for wages plus benefits are: $94.28 for management services (code 11-0000), and $143.68 for legal services (code 23-0000). Therefore, the weighted hourly cost (for wages plus benefits) is $133.80 [or (0.80 * $143.68) + (0.20 * $94.28)].

    FERC-576—Report of Service Interruptions Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden hours
  • and cost ($)
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Submittal of Original Email/Fax 21 3 63 1 hr.; $133.80 63 hrs.; $8,429.40 $133.80 Submittal of Damage Report 21 3 63 0.25 hrs.; $33.45 15.75 hrs.; $2,107.35 33.45 Submittal of DOT Incident Report 21 1 21 0.25 hrs.; $33.45 5.25 hrs.; $702.45 33.45 Total 84 hrs.; $11,239.20

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15701 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD18-11-000] Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Reliability Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold a Technical Conference on Tuesday, July 31, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will be held in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The purpose of the conference is to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. Attached is the final agenda for this event.

    The conference will be open for the public to attend. There is no fee for attendance. However, members of the public are encouraged to preregister online at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/07-31-18-form.asp.

    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website, http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. Anyone with internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700.

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1 (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this technical conference, please contact Lodie White (202) 502-8453, [email protected] For information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at (202) 502-8368, [email protected]

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15700 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project Nos. 7921-007 and 7922-005] Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Tridam Energy LLC; Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC

    1. By letter filed July 9, 2018, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC informed the Commission that two projects were transferred to them from Tridam Energy LLC, effective July 2018. The projects are: (1) Otis Falls Project No. 7921, originally issued March 11, 1985 1 located on the Souhegan River in Hillsboro County, New Hampshire and (2) Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7922, originally issued March 11, 1985 2 located on the Souhegan River in Hillsboro County, New Hampshire. Transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.

    1 Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30 FERC ¶ 62,267 (1985).

    2 Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less. Alden T. Greenwood, 30 FERC ¶ 62,257 (1985).

    2. Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Chamberlain Falls Project No. 7921 and the Otis Falls Project No. 7922. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Justin D. Ahmann, President, Alpine Pacific Utilities Hydro, LLC, 75 Somers Road, Somers, Montana 59932, Phone: 406-393-2127, Email: [email protected]

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15702 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0718; FRL-9979-98] Certain New Chemical Substances; Receipt and Status Information for April 2018 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the Federal Register pertaining to submissions under TSCA section 5, including notice of receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) or Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), including an amended notice or test information; an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), both pending and/or concluded; a notice of commencement (NOC) of manufacture (including import) for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. This document covers the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0718, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, 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: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 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:

    For technical information contact: Jim Rahai, Information Management Division (MC 7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8593; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Executive Summary A. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from April 1, 2018 to April 30, 2018. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.

    EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/status-pre-manufacture-notices. This information is updated on a weekly basis.

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

    Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance. Any chemical substance that is not on EPA's TSCA Inventory of Chemical Substances (TSCA Inventory) is classified as a “new chemical substance,” while a chemical substance that is listed on the TSCA Inventory is classified as an “existing chemical substance.” (See TSCA section 3(11).) For more information about the TSCA Inventory go to: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory.

    Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).

    TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems.

    Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the Federal Register certain information, including notice of receipt of a PMN/SNUN/MCAN (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (biotech exemption); an application for a TME, both pending and concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.

    C. Does this action apply to me?

    This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.

    D. Does this action have any incremental economic impacts or paperwork burdens?

    No.

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

    1. Submitting confidential business information (CBI). Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information 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. Status Reports

    In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the Federal Register after providing notice of such changes to the public and an opportunity to comment (See the Federal Register of May 12, 1995, (60 FR 25798) (FRL-4942-7). Since the passage of the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA in 2016, public interest in information on the status of section 5 cases under EPA review and, in particular, the final determination of such cases, has increased. In an effort to be responsive to the regulated community, the users of this information, and the general public, to comply with the requirements of TSCA, to conserve EPA resources and to streamline the process and make it more timely, EPA is providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at: https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/status-pre-manufacture-notices. This information is updated on a weekly basis.

    III. Receipt Reports

    For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs received by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (i.e., domestic producer or importer), the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the notice, and the chemical substance identity.

    As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G) indicates that this information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI. Submissions which are initial submissions will not have a letter following the case number. Submissions which are amendments to previous submissions will have a case number followed by the letter “A” (e.g. P-18-1234A). The version column designates submissions in sequence as “1”, “2”, “3”, etc. Note that in some cases, an initial submission is not numbered as version 1; this is because earlier version(s) were rejected as incomplete or invalid submissions. Note also that future versions of the following tables may adjust slightly as the Agency works to automate population of the data in the tables.

    Table I—PMN/SNUN/MCANs Received From 4/01/2018 to 4/30/2018 Case No. Version Received
  • date
  • Manufacturer Use Chemical substance
    P-17-0178A 4 4/5/2018 Shin-ETSU Microsi (G) Microlithography for electronic device manufacturing (G) Sulfonium, triphenyl-, salt with substituted-alkyl 4-substituted-benzoate. P-17-0299A 2 4/23/2018 CBI (G) Paint additive (G) 2-Propenoic acid, alkyl-, polymers with alkyl acrylate and polyethylene glycol methacrylate alkyl ether. P-17-0419A 2 4/9/2018 Materia Inc (S) Solid crosslinkable polymer, Liquid thermoset resin formulation (G) Unsaturated polycyclic hydrocarbon. P-18-0050A 2 4/27/2018 CBI (G) Raw material in industrial coatings (G) Alkane, diisocyanato-, homopolymer, alkyl dihydrogen phosphate- and polyalkylene glycol mono-alkyl ether-. P-18-0052A 2 4/3/2018 Shin ETSU Silicones of America (G) Coating agent (G) Perfluoroalkylethyl- and vinyl-modified Organopolysiloxane. P-18-0053A 2 4/3/2018 Shin ETSU Silicones of America (G) Coating agent (G) Perfluoroalkylethyl- and vinyl-modified Organopolysiloxane. P-18-0073A 2 4/24/2018 Earth Science Laboratories (S) FIFRA Inert ingredient, Anti-scalant, Chlorine stabilizer (G) Non-Pesticide Agricultural Use Chemical (S) Sulfuric acid, ammonium salt (1:?). P-18-0122A 3 4/13/2018 Polymer Ventures, Inc (G) Paper additive (G) Alkylamide, polymer with alkylamine, formaldehyde, and polycyanamide, alkyl acid salt. P-18-0122A 4 4/24/2018 Polymer Ventures, Inc (G) Paper additive (G) Alkylamide, polymer with alkylamine, formaldehyde, and polycyanamide, alkyl acid salt. P-18-0136 2 4/9/2018 CBI (G) Coloring agent (G) 1-butanaminium, n,n,n-tributyl-, 2(or5)-[[benzoyldihydrodioxo[(sulfophenyl)amino]heteropolycycle]oxy]-5(or 2)-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)benzenesulfonate (2:1). P-18-0143A 2 4/4/2018 Huntsman International LLC (G) Customers will further formulate the product containing the PMN substance to make a product that is used in Industrial applications as an anti-corrosive primer coating on metal. Customers will further formulate the product containing the PMN substance to make a product that is used as a primer on concrete (G) Fatty acids, tall-oil polymers with aminoalkyl, dialkyl alkane diamine, polyalkylene polyamine alkanepolyamine fraction, and tris-[(alkylamino) alkyl] phenol. P-18-0143A 3 4/12/2018 Huntsman International LLC (G) Customers will further formulate the product containing the PMN substance to make a product that is used in Industrial applications as an anti-corrosive primer coating on metal. Customers will further formulate the product containing the PMN substance to make a product that is used as a primer on concrete (G) Fatty acids, tall-oil polymers with aminoalkyl, dialkyl alkane diamine, polyalkylene polyamine alkanepolyamine fraction, and tris-[(alkylamino) alkyl] phenol. P-18-0144A 2 4/4/2018 CBI (G) Coating (G) Formaldehyde, polymer with an alkane diamine and phenol. P-18-0144A 3 4/5/2018 CBI (G) Curing agent (G) Formaldehyde, polymer with an alkane diamine and phenol. P-18-0145A 3 4/25/2018 CBI (S) Wood coatings, Plastic coatings, Parquet coatings, Furniture coatings (G) Dialkanediol, polymer with 5-isocyanato-1-(isocyanatoalkyl)-1,3,3-trialkylcycloalkane, bis[N-[3-(trialkoxysilyl)alkyl]carbamate](ester). P-18-0146 2 4/13/2018 Arakawa Chemical (USA) Inc (G) Primer paint binders for non-dispersive uses (G) Modified fat amines, polymers with bisphenol a, alkanolamines, epichlorohydrin, alkylamine and substituted isocyanato [isocyanatoalkylcarbomonocyle]. P-18-0147 1 4/4/2018 JSR Micro, Inc (G) Polymer for Photolithography (G) Phenol, 4-ethenyl-, 1-substituted, polymer with 1-(1,1-substituted)-4-ethenylbenzene and ethenylbenzene, 2, 2'-(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2-substituted]-initiated, hydrolyzed. P-18-0148 1 4/5/2018 3M Company (S) Roofing granule coating (G) Kaolin, reaction products with calcined kaolin, hetero substituted alkyl acrylate polymer, and sodium silicate. P-18-0149 1 4/5/2018 3M Company (S) Roofing granule coating (G) Kaolin, calcined, reaction products with hetero substituted alkyl acrylate polymer and sodium silicate. P-18-0150 3 4/16/2018 CBI (G) Component of an industrial coating (G) Tertiary amine, compounds with amino sulfonic acid blocked aliphatic isocyanate homopolymer. P-18-0151 2 4/20/2018 Struers Inc. (S) Reactant (S) Formaldehyde, reaction products with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine and tert-butylphenol. P-18-0151A 3 4/27/2018 Struers Inc (S) A curing agent for curing epoxy systems (S) Formaldehyde, reaction products with 1,3-benzenedimethanamine and p-tert-butylphenol. P-18-0152 1 4/20/2018 CBI (G) Intermediate for use in manufacturing (G) Hydrolyzed functionalized di-amino silanol polymer. P-18-0153 1 4/23/2018 CBI (G) Mixed metal oxide for batteries (G) Lithium mixed metal oxide. P-18-0154 2 4/25/2018 CBI (G) Crosslinking agent for coatings (G) Isocyanic acid, polyalkylenepolycycloalkylene ester, 2-alkoxy alkanol and 1-alkoxy alkanol and alkylene diol blocked. P-18-0155 1 4/26/2018 CBI (G) Component in cement (G) Crosslinked polymer of alkyl acrylamides, acrylate esters, and alkyl acrylamide sulfonate salt. P-18-0156 1 4/26/2018 CBI (G) Component in cement (G) Crosslinked polymer of alkyl acrylamides, acrylate esters, and alkyl acrylamide sulfonic acid. P-18-0157 1 4/27/2018 JSR Micro, Inc (G) Photosensitizer for Photoresist (G) Thiophenium, 1-(2,7-disubstituted -1-naphthalenyl)tetrahydro-, salt with polyfluoro-n-polyfluoroalkylsulfonyl-1-alkanesulfonamide (1:1). P-18-0158 1 4/27/2018 JSR Micro, Inc. (G) Photolithography (G) Sulfonium, triphenyl-, salt with 2,3-bis(substituted) 5-sulfocarbopolycyclic-2,3-carboxylate derivative (1:1). P-18-0159 1 4/27/2018 JSR Micro, Inc (G) Photosensitizer for Photoresist (G) Thiophenium, 1-(2,7-disubstituted-1-naphthalenyl)tetrahydro-, salt with polyfluoro-n-polyfluoroalkylsulfonyl-1-alkanesulfonamide (1:1). P-18-0160 1 4/30/2018 CBI (G) Coating component (G) Heteropolycyclic, halo substituted alkyl substituted- diaromatic amino substituted carbomonocycle, halo substituted alkyl substituted heteropolycyclic, tetraaromatic metalloid salt (1:1). P-18-0161 1 4/30/2018 CBI (G) Polymer additive (G) Carbomonocyclic dicarboxylic acid, alkyl diesters.

    In Table II. of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs received by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (e.g., amendment to generic name, specific name, technical contact information, etc.) and chemical substance identity.

    Table II—NOCs Received From 4/01/2018 to 4/30/2018 Case No. Received
  • date
  • Commencement
  • date
  • If amendment,
  • type of
  • amendment
  • Chemical substance
    J-17-0022 4/30/2018 3/30/2018 (G) Modified Trichoderma reesei. P-14-0314 4/13/2018 4/6/2018 (G) Poly aliphatic phosphate. P-15-0114 4/10/2018 3/23/2018 (S) 2-butanone, 1,1,1,3,4,4,4-heptafluoro-3-(trifluoromethyl)-. P-15-0363 4/23/2018 3/27/2018 (G) Aliphatic acrylate. P-15-0666 4/30/2018 4/16/2018 (G) Formaldehyde, polymer with aromatic diamine, 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane and phenol. P-15-0726 4/13/2018 4/1/2018 (S) Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, monobutyl ether, monoether with propylene oxide-2-[[3-(triethoxysilyl)propoxy}methyl]oxirane polymer. P-16-0337 4/23/2018 3/28/2018 (G) Aliphatic acrylate. P-16-0410 4/24/2018 4/4/2018 (G) Silicophosphonate-sodium silicate. P-16-0555 4/4/2018 3/25/2018 (G) Neutral alcohol functionalized methacrylate¿ substituted polymer. P-16-0558 4/4/2018 3/25/2018 (G) Neutral alcohol functionalized methacrylate¿ substituted polymer. P-17-0183 4/11/2018 3/25/2018 (S) 1,3-propanediol, 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, reaction products with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl me ether. P-17-0232 4/27/2018 4/12/2018 (G) Copolyamide of an aromatic dicarboxylic acid and a mixture of diamines. P-17-0266 4/5/2018 11/15/2017 (S) Alcohols, c12-13-branched and linear, dimerized. P-17-0343 4/13/2018 4/9/2018 (G) Modified benzimidazole salt. P-17-0404 4/11/2018 4/8/2018 (S) 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-(2-butyoxyethoxy) ethyl ester, polymer with 1,3-butadiene and 2-propenenitrile. P-18-0021 4/9/2018 4/6/2018 (G) Dicarboxylic acids, polymers with substituted poly(substituted alkendiyl) ,3-hydroxy-2-(hydroxyalkyl)-2-alkylalkenoic acid, 5-substituted-1- (substituted alkyl)-1,3,3-trialkyl carbomonocyle, alkanediol, alkane-triol, alcohol blocked compounds with aminoalcohol.

    In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information received by EPA during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.

    Table III—Test Information Received From 4/01/2018 to 4/30/2018 Case No. Received
  • date
  • Type of test information Chemical substance
    P-18-0035 4/13/2018 Ames Assay: Reverse Mutation Assay Using Bacteria (OECD TG 471) (G) Methacrylic acid heterocyclic alkyl ester, methacrylic acid heterocyclic alkyl ester. P-17-0236 4/15/2018 Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD TG 429) (G) Formaldehyde, polymer with (chloromethyl) oxirane and substituted aromatic compounds. P-17-0116 4/19/2018 Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD TG 429) (G) Cashew Nut Shell Liquid, branched polyester-polyether polyol. P-87-1436 4/24/2018 QSAR Assessment Report on Vinyl Laurate; Skin Sensitization: Local Lymph Node Assay (OECD TG 429); Repeated Does 90-Day Oral Toxicity in Rodents (OECD TG 408); Repeated Dose Toxicity and Repro/Devel Toxicity Screening (OECD TG 422); Chromosome Aberration Test (OECD TG 473); Gene Mutation Assay (OECD TG 476); Micronucleus Test (OECD TG 474); Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study (OECD TG 414); Aquatic Toxicity—Daphnia (OECD TG 202); Aquatic Toxicity—Daphnia Reproductive (OECD TG 211); Aquatic Toxicity—Algal Growth (OECD TG 201); Ready Biodegradability (OECD TG 301); Dermal Irritation/Corrosion (OECD TG 404); Bacterial Reverse Mutation Assay—Ames Test (OECD 471); Fish Acute Toxicity (OECD TG 203); Activated Sludge Test (OECD TG 209); Acute Oral Toxicity (OECD TG 401); Acute Eye Irritation (OECD TG 405); Acute Dermal Toxicity (OECD TG 402) (S) Dodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester. P-11-0063 4/26/2018 Annual Analyte Test Data (G) Perfluoroalkyl acryalte copolymer. P-16-0543 4/27/2018 Exposure Monitoring Report (G) Halogenophosphoric acid metal salt. P-18-0047 4/27/2018 Fish Chronic Toxicity (OECD TG 210) (S) 1,2-Ethanediol, 1,2-dibenzoate.

    If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Pamela Myrick, Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15720 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Issuance of Staff Implementation Guidance 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as Amended AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) staff have issued Staff Implementation Guidance (SIG) 6.1, Clarification of Paragraphs 40-41 of SFFAS 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, as amended.

    The SIG is available on the FASAB website at http://www.fasab.gov/accounting-standards/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15733 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0405 and OMB 3060-1101] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before September 21, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0405.

    Title: Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM Booster Station, FCC Form 349.

    Form Number: FCC Form 349.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or Tribal Government; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,200 respondents; 2,400 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-1.5 hours.

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

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 4,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $4,674,600.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 349 is used to apply for authority to construct a new FM translator or FM booster broadcast station, or to make changes in the existing facilities of such stations. Form 349 also contains a third party disclosure requirement, pursuant to Section 73.3580. This rule requires stations applying for a new broadcast station, or to make major changes to an existing station, to give local public notice of this filing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the station is located. This local public notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. In addition, a copy of this notice must be placed in the station's public inspection file along with the application, pursuant to Section 73.3527. This recordkeeping information collection requirement is contained in OMB Control No. 3060-0214, which covers Section 73.3527.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1101.

    Title: Children's Television Requests for Preemption Flexibility.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15 respondents; 15 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: On September 26, 2006, the Commission adopted a Second Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order in MM Docket 00-167, FCC 06-143, In the Matter of Children's Television Obligations of Digital Television Broadcasters. The Second Order addressed several matters relating to the obligation of television licensees to provide educational programming for children and the obligation of television licensees and cable operators to protect children from excessive and inappropriate commercial messages. Among other things, the Second Order adopts a children's programming preemption policy. This policy requires all networks requesting preemption flexibility to file a request with the Media Bureau by August 1 of each year. The request identifies the number of preemptions the network expects, when the program will be rescheduled, whether the rescheduled time is the program's second home, and the network's plan to notify viewers of the schedule change. Preemption flexibility requests are not mandatory filings. They are requests that may be filed by networks seeking preemption flexibility.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15653 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 17, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. BOK Financial Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma; to acquire through its de novo subsidiary, BOKF Merger Corporation Number Sixteen, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 100 percent of the voting shares of CoBiz Financial, Inc., Denver Colorado; and thereby indirectly acquire CoBiz Bank (doing business as Colorado Business Bank in Colorado and Arizona Business Bank in Arizona), also of Denver, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15614 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 17, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. First Security Bancorp, Searcy, Arkansas; to acquire additional voting shares of CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc., Leawood, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of CrossFirst Bank, Leawood, Kansas.

    2. Southern Missouri Bancorp, Inc., Poplar Bluff, Missouri; to merge with Gideon Bancshares Company, Dexter, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire First Commercial Bank, Gideon, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 18, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15706 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 7, 2018.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Dimitri J. Nionakis, Milton, Massachusetts; to acquire shares of Federal One Holdings, LLC, Milton, Massachusetts; and thereby indirectly acquire Admirals Bank, Boston, Massachusetts.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]

    1. Kenneth Edward Poteet, Huntleigh, Missouri; Corey Kenneth Poteet, Brentwood, Missouri; and McLane Ray Poteet, St. Louis, Missouri; as members of a family control group; to acquire voting shares of M1 Bancshares, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of M1 Bank, Macks Creek, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 17, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15613 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0010; Docket No. 2018-0053; Sequence No. 18] Submission for OMB Review; Progress Payments (SF-1443) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding progress payments.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This website provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions on the site.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 9000-0010, Progress Payments, SF 1443.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0010, Progress Payments, SF 1443, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Certain Federal contracts provide for progress payments to be made to the contractor during performance of the contract. Pursuant to FAR clause 52.232-16 “Progress Payments,” contractors are required to request progress payments on Standard Form (SF) 1443, “Contractor's Request for Progress Payment,” or an agency approved electronic equivalent. Additionally, contractors may be required to submit reports, certificates, financial statements, and other pertinent information, reasonably requested by the Contracting Officer. The contractual requirement for submission of reports, certificates, financial statements and other pertinent information is necessary for protection of the Government against financial loss through the making of progress payments.

    B. Public Comment

    A 60 day notice was published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 18566, on April 27, 2018. No comments were received.

    C. Annual Reporting Burden

    The Electronic Document Access system (DoD official contract file system) indicates that in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, 19,755 DoD contract awards contain FAR clause 52.232-16, Progress Payments.

    The estimated total burden is as follows:

    Respondents: 19,755.

    Responses per Respondent: 32.

    Total Annual Responses: 632,160.

    Hours per Response: 0.42.

    Total Burden Hours: 265,507.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Obtaining Copies: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0010, Progress Payments, SF 1443, in all correspondence.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. William Clark, Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15616 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE [GAO-18-568G] 2018 Revision—Government Auditing Standards AGENCY:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    ACTION:

    Notice of document availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued its 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards, known as the “Yellow Book.” To help ensure that the standards continue to meet the needs of the government auditing community, the Comptroller General of the United States established the Yellow Book Advisory Council to provide input on revisions to the Yellow Book. This 2018 revision of the standards includes the Advisory Council's input regarding the changes. It also includes input from public comments received on the 2017 exposure draft. The changes contained in the 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards reflect major developments in the auditing, accountability, and financial management professions.

    The 2018 revision to Government Auditing Standards is available in electronic format for download from GAO's web page at www.gao.gov using GAO-18-568G as a report number. It will also be available for sale in hardcopy from the Government Publishing Office in the near future at http://bookstore.thefederalregister.org or other GPO locations listed there. GAO-18-568G may be used to find its GPO stock number and ISBN.

    DATES:

    The 2018 revision will be effective for financial audits, attestation engagements, and reviews of financial statements for periods ending on or after June 30, 2020, and for performance audits beginning on or after July 1, 2019. Early implementation is not permitted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on Government Auditing Standards, please submit questions electronically to James R. Dalkin, [email protected] or telephonically to 202-512-9535.

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 67-13, 42 Stat. 20 (June 10, 1921).

    James R. Dalkin, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15629 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Notice of Hearing: Reconsideration of Disapproval Minnesota Medicaid State Plan Amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of hearing: Reconsideration of disapproval.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces an administrative hearing to be held on August 21, 2018, at the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Division of Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program Services, Chicago Regional Office, 233 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600, Chicago, Illinois 60601-5519, to reconsider CMS's decision to disapprove Minnesota's Medicaid SPA 12-0014-B.

    DATES:

    Requests to participate in the hearing as a party must be received by the presiding officer by August 7, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benjamin R. Cohen, Presiding Officer, CMS, 2520 Lord Baltimore Drive, Suite L, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Telephone: (410) 786-3169.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS's decision to disapprove Minnesota's Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B, which was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 1, 2012 and disapproved on April 27, 2018. This SPA requested CMS approval to limit application of a resource disregard, in determining eligibility for several optional eligibility groups covered under its state plan, to individuals who were previously enrolled in the eligibility group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIII) (sometimes referred to as the “working disability” group) for at least 24 consecutive months and who have an ineligible spouse.

    The issues to be considered at the hearing are whether Minnesota SPA 12-0014-B is inconsistent with the requirements of:

    • Section 1902(a)(17) of the Act and 42 CFR 435.601(d)(4), which require that states apply comparable eligibility standards and methodologies within eligibility groups.

    Section 1116 of the Act and federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430 establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a state plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish in the Federal Register a copy of the notice to a state Medicaid agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing, and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the state Medicaid agency of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice in the Federal Register.

    Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). If the hearing is later rescheduled, the presiding officer will notify all participants.

    The notice to Minnesota announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:

    Ms. Marie Zimmerman Medicaid Director State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services 540 Cedar Street, P.O. Box 64983 St. Paul, MN 55167 Dear Ms. Zimmerman

    I am responding to your request for reconsideration of the decision to disapprove Minnesota's State Plan amendment (SPA) 12-0014-B, which was submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on April 1, 2012, and disapproved on April 27, 2018. I am scheduling a hearing on your request for reconsideration to be held on August 21, 2018, at the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Division of Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program Services, Chicago Regional Office, 233 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois 60601-5519.

    I am designating Mr. Benjamin R. Cohen as the presiding officer. If these arrangements present any problems, please contact Mr. Cohen at (410) 786-3169. In order to facilitate any communication that may be necessary between the parties prior to the hearing, please notify the presiding officer to indicate acceptability of the hearing date that has been scheduled and provide names of the individuals who will represent the State at the hearing. If the hearing date is not acceptable, Mr. Cohen can set another date mutually agreeable to the parties. The hearing will be governed by the procedures prescribed by federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430.

    SPA 12-0014-B proposed to limit application of a resource disregard, in determining eligibility for several optional eligibility groups covered under its state plan, to individuals who were previously enrolled in the eligibility group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XIII) (sometimes referred to as the “working disability” group) for at least 24 consecutive months and who have an ineligible spouse.

    The issues to be considered at the hearing are whether Minnesota SPA 12-0014-B is inconsistent with the requirements of:

    • Section 1902(a)(17) of the Act and 42 CFR § 435.601(d)(4), which require that states apply comparable eligibility standards and methodologies within eligibility groups.

    In the event that CMS and the state come to agreement on resolution of the issues which formed the basis for disapproval, this SPA may be moved to approval prior to the scheduled hearing.

    Sincerely, Seema Verma, Administrator, cc: Benjamin R. Cohen

    Section 1116 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1316; 42 CFR 430.18).

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program No. 13.714. Medicaid Assistance Program)
    Dated: July 17, 2018. Seema Verma, Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15681 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369] Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances 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 additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010, FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific Products” that explained the process that would be used to make product-specific guidances available to the public on FDA's website. The guidances identified in this notice were developed using the process described in that guidance.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 21, 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-2007-D-0369 for “Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances 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 guidances to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance documents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33311), FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Bioequivalence Recommendations for Specific Products” that explained the process that would be used to make product-specific guidances available to the public on FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the Federal Register. The public is encouraged to submit comments on those recommendations within 60 days of their announcement in the Federal Register. FDA considers any comments received and either publishes final guidances or publishes revised draft guidances for comment. Guidances were last announced in the Federal Register on February 9, 2018. This notice announces draft product-specific guidances, either new or revised, that are posted on FDA's website.

    II. Drug Products for Which New Draft Product-Specific Guidances are Available

    FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:

    Table 1—New Draft Product-Specific Guidances for Drug Products Acrivastine; Pseudoephedrine hydrochloride. Beclomethasone dipropionate. Betamethasone dipropionate. Betrixaban. Ciprofloxacin. Deferasirox. Dexamethasone; Neomycin sulfate; Polymyxin b sulfate. Epinephrine. Ethinyl estradiol; Norethindrone acetate. Finafloxacin. Fluocinolone acetonide. Loteprednol etabonate. Mecamylamine hydrochloride. Methscopolamine bromide. Methylphenidate. Metyrosine. Moxifloxacin hydrochloride. Nebivolol hydrochloride; Valsartan. Nimodipine. Nitisinone. Omeprazole. Rifapentine. Ritonavir. Sodium polystyrene sulfonate. Triamcinolone acetonide. Valbenazine tosylate. III. Drug Products for Which Revised Draft Product-Specific Guidances are Available

    FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:

    Table 2—Revised Draft Product-Specific Guidances for Drug Products Abiraterone acetate. Dapagliflozin propanediol; Metformin hydrochloride. Diclofenac sodium. Donepezil hydrochloride; Memantine hydrochloride. Esomeprazole strontium. Ethosuximide. Glatiramer acetate. Hydrocodone bitartrate. Lansoprazole. Latanoprost. Leucovorin calcium. Methylphenidate hydrochloride. Morphine sulfate; Naltrexone hydrochloride. Nisoldipine. Oxycodone hydrochloride. Ticagrelor. Triamcinolone acetonide.

    For a complete history of previously published Federal Register notices related to product-specific guidances, go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter Docket No. FDA-2007-D-0369.

    These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are 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.

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidances at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15735 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-17-031: Role of Age-Associated Metabolic Changes in Alzhemimer's Disease.

    Date: July 31, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, Ph.D., Chief, BDCN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1246, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 17, 2018. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15605 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Urologic and Urogynecologic Applications.

    Date: July 20, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ganesan Ramesh, Ph.D., Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2182, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5467, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Review of Aging Applications.

    Date: August 13, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, Ph.D., Chief, BDCN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1246, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM18-018: Somatic Cell Genome Editing Dissemination and Coordinating Center (U24).

    Date: August 16, 2018.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Elena Smirnova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-357-9112, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 16, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15606 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.

    Date: October 2, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5625 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: George Kunos, M.D., Ph.D. Scientific Director, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5625 Fishers Lane, Room 2s-24a Rockville, MD 20852 301-443-2069 [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 17, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15610 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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 section 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, NHLBI R13 Conference Review.

    Date: August 2-3, 2018.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Stephanie J. Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0291, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 17, 2018 Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15620 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel Opportunities for Collaborative Research at the NIH Clinical Center.

    Date: August 9, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: William J Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, (301-827-7938) [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: July 17, 2018. Michelle D. Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15619 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Proposed Project: Division of State Programs—Management Reporting Tool (DSP-MRT) (OMB No. 0930-0354)—Revision

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) aims to monitor several substance abuse prevention programs through the DSP-MRT, which reports data using the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). Programs monitored through the DSP-MRT include: SPF-Partnerships for Success, SPF- Prescription Drugs, Prescription Drug Overdose, and First Responder-Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This request for data collection includes a revision from a previously approved OMB instrument.

    Monitoring data using the SPF model will allow SAMHSA's project officers to systematically collect data to monitor their grant program. In addition to assessing activities related to the SPF steps, the performance monitoring instruments covered in this statement collect data to assess the following grantee required specific performance measures:

    • Number of training and technical assistance activities per funded community provided by the grantee to support communities

    • Reach of training and technical assistance activities (numbers served) provided by the grantee

    • Percentage of subrecipient communities that submit data to the grantee data system

    • Number of subrecipient communities that improved on one or more targeted National Outcome Measures

    • Number of grantees who integrate Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data into their program needs assessment

    • Number of naloxone toolkits distributed

    Changes to this package include the following:

    • Inclusion of intervention names in the standard tool

    • Inclusion of community outcomes reporting

    • Inclusion of questions on training services requested and referrals/receiving treatment services in the PDO/FR-CARA supplemental section

    Annualized Data Collection Burden Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Standard DSP Monitoring Tool 117 4 468 3 1404 Section A: Rx 25 2 63 1 42 Section B: PDO/FR CARA 23 4 100 1 100 Section C: PFS 71 1 71 3 213 FY2020 Total 117 702 1,759

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 22, 2018 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15677 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0122] Agency Information Collection Activities: Screening Requirements for Carriers AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted no later than September 21, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0122 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number (202) 325-0056 or via email [email protected]. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Screening Requirements for Carriers.

    OMB Number: 1651-0122.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with a decrease to the burden hours due to updated agency estimates. There is no change to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Carriers.

    Abstract: Section 273(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1323(e) the Act) authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to establish procedures which carriers must undertake for the proper screening of their alien passengers prior to embarkation at the port from which they are to depart for the United States, in order to become eligible for an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine imposed under section 273(a)(1) of the Act. The screening procedures are set forth in 8 CFR 273.3. As provided in 8 CFR 273.4, to be eligible to obtain such an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine, the carrier must provide evidence to CBP that it screened all passengers on the conveyance in accordance with the procedures listed in 8 CFR 273.3.

    Some examples of the evidence the carrier may provide to CBP include: A description of the carrier's document screening training program; the number of employees trained; information regarding the date and number of improperly documented aliens intercepted by the carrier at the port(s) of embarkation; and any other evidence to demonstrate the carrier's efforts to properly screen passengers destined for the United States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 41.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 100 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,100.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Seth D. Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15725 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0103] Agency Information Collection Activities: Passenger List/Crew List AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than September 21, 2018) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0103 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected].

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected]. Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP website at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Passenger List/Crew List.

    OMB Number: 1651-0103.

    Form Number: Form I-418.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with a decrease to the estimated burden hours. There is no change to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Abstract: CBP Form I-418 is prescribed by CBP, for use by masters, owners, or agents of vessels in complying with Sections 231 and 251 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This form is filled out upon arrival of any person by commercial vessel at any port within the United States from any place outside the United States. The master or commanding officer of the vessel is responsible for providing CBP officers at the port of arrival with lists or manifests of the persons on board such conveyances. CBP is in the process of amending its regulations to allow for the electronic submission of the data elements required on CBP Form I-418. This form is provided for in 8 CFR 251.1 and 251.3. A Copy of CBP I-418 can be found at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=i-418&=Apply.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 77,935.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Hours: 77,935.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15726 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4375-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Nebraska; 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 Nebraska (FEMA-4375-DR), dated June 29, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued June 29, 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 29, 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 Nebraska resulting from a severe winter storm and straight-line winds during the period of April 13 to 18, 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 Nebraska.

    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, Constance C. Johnson-Cage, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Antelope, Blaine, Boone, Boyd, Cheyenne, Clay, Custer, Deuel, Fillmore, Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hall, Hamilton, Holt, Howard, Keith, Knox, Logan, Loup, Madison, Merrick, Nance, Nuckolls, Pierce, Platte, Rock, Sherman, Valley, Webster, and Wheeler Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Nebraska 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. 2018-15676 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4376-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-4376-DR), dated July 2, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    The declaration was issued July 2, 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 July 2, 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 a severe storm and flooding during the period of May 27 to 28, 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:

    Baltimore and Howard 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. 2018-15678 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4341-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001] Seminole Tribe of Florida; Amendment No. 3 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 for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4341-DR), dated September 27, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued July 12, 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 July 12, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), in a letter to Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the Seminole Tribe of Florida resulting from Hurricane Irma during the period of September 4 to October 4, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).

    Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 27, 2017, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total eligible costs, except for assistance previously approved at 100 percent.

    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for Other Needs Assistance (Section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total eligible costs.

    (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. 2018-15709 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4357-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] American Samoa; 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 for the territory of American Samoa (FEMA-4357-DR), dated March 2, 2018, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    This amendment was issued June 28, 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 28, 2018, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), in a letter to Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the territory of American Samoa resulting from Tropical Storm Gita during the period of February 7 to 12, 2018, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”).

    Therefore, I amend my declaration of March 2, 2018, to authorize Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act at 90 percent of total eligible costs.

    (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. 2018-15710 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0014] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Affidavit of Support AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 22, 2018. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number [1615-0014] in the subject line.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2018 at 83 FR 14486, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive three comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2006-0072 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Affidavit of Support.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-134; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Visa applicants use this information collection to demonstrate that they have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-134 is 2,500 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 3,750 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $10,625.

    Dated: July 18, 2018. Samantha L. Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15688 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6089-N-02] Notice of HUD-Held Multifamily and Healthcare Loan Sale (MHLS 2018-2) AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of sale of three multifamily and fifteen healthcare mortgage loans.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces HUD's intention to sell three unsubsidized multifamily and fifteen unsubsidized healthcare mortgage loans, without Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance, in a competitive, sealed bid sale on or about August 15, 2018 (MHLS 2018-2 or Loan Sale). This notice also describes generally the bidding process for the sale and certain persons who are ineligible to bid.

    DATES:

    A Bidder's Information Package (BIP) will be made available on or about July 18, 2018. Bids for the loans must be submitted on the bid date, which is currently scheduled for August 15, 2018 between certain specified hours. HUD anticipates that an award or awards will be made on or before August 16, 2018. Closing is expected to take place between August 27th and August 31st, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To become a qualified bidder and receive the BIP, prospective bidders must complete, execute, and submit a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. Both documents will be available on the HUD website at www.hud.gov/fhaloansales. Please fax or email as well as mail executed original documents to JS Watkins Realty Partners, LLC: JS Watkins Realty Partners, LLC, c/o The Debt Exchange, 133 Federal Street, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02111, Attention: MHLS 2018-2 Sale Coordinator, Fax: 1-978-967-8607, Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Lucey, Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-402-3927. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call 202-708-4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    HUD announces its intention to sell, in MHLS 2018-2, eighteen (18) unsubsidized first lien mortgage loans (Mortgage Loans), consisting of fifteen (15) first lien healthcare notes secured by assisted living facilities located in various locations within Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and three first lien multifamily notes secured by multifamily properties located in Utah and Alabama. The Mortgage Loans are non-performing mortgage loans. The listing of the Mortgage Loans is included in the BIP. The Mortgage Loans will be sold without FHA insurance and with HUD servicing released. HUD will offer qualified bidders an opportunity to bid competitively on the Mortgage Loans. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more of the Mortgage Loans.

    The Mortgage Loans will be stratified for bidding purposes into several mortgage loan pools. Each pool will contain Mortgage Loans that generally have similar performance, property type, geographic location, lien position and other characteristics. Qualified bidders may submit bids on one or more pools of Mortgage Loans or may bid on individual loans.

    The Qualification Statement describes the entities/individuals that may be qualified to bid on the Mortgage Loans if they meet certain requirements as detailed in the Qualification Statement. Some entities/individuals must meet additional requirements in order to be qualified to bid, including but not limited to:

    Any mortgagee/servicer who originated one or more of the Mortgage Loans; a mortgagor or an operator, with respect to any HUD insured or subsidized mortgage loan (excluding the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale) who is currently in default, violation, or noncompliance with one or more of HUD's requirements or business agreements; and a limited partner, nonmanaging member, investor and/or shareholder who owns a 1% or less interest in one or more of the Mortgage Loans, or in the project securing one or more of the Mortgage Loans; and any of the aforementioned entities'/individuals' principals, affiliates, family members, and assigns.

    Interested entities/individuals who fall into one of these categories should review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they may be eligible to qualify to submit a bid on the Mortgage Loans. Other entities/individuals not described herein may also be restricted from bidding on the Mortgage Loans, as fully detailed in the Qualification Statement.

    The Bidding Process

    The BIP describes in detail the procedure for bidding in MHLS 2018-2. The BIP also includes a standardized non-negotiable loan sale agreement (Loan Sale Agreement).

    As part of its bid, each bidder must submit a minimum deposit of the greater of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or ten percent (10%) of the aggregate bid prices for all of such Bidder's bids. In the event the Bidder's aggregate bid is less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), the minimum deposit shall be not less than fifty percent (50%) of the Bidder's aggregate bid. HUD will evaluate the bids submitted and determine the successful bid(s) in its sole and absolute discretion. If a bidder is successful, the bidder's deposit will be non-refundable and will be applied toward the purchase price, with any amount beyond the purchase price being returned to the bidder. Deposits will be returned to unsuccessful bidders after notification to successful bidders on or before August 20, 2018. Closings are expected to take place between August 27, 2018 and August 30, 2018.

    These are the essential terms of sale. The Loan Sale Agreement, which is included in the BIP, contains additional terms and details. To ensure a competitive bidding process, the terms of the bidding process and the Loan Sale Agreement are not subject to negotiation.

    Due Diligence Review

    The BIP describes the due diligence process for reviewing loan files in MHLS 2018-2. Qualified bidders will be able to access loan information remotely via a high-speed internet connection. Further information on performing due diligence review of the Mortgage Loans is provided in the BIP.

    Mortgage Loan Sale Policy

    HUD reserves the right to add Mortgage Loans to or delete Mortgage Loans from MHLS 2018-2 at any time prior to the Award Date. HUD also reserves the right to reject any and all bids, in whole or in part, without prejudice to HUD's right to include the Mortgage Loans in a later sale. The Mortgage Loans will not be withdrawn after the award date except as is specifically provided for in the Loan Sale Agreement.

    This is a sale of unsubsidized mortgage loans, pursuant to Section 204(a) of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997, (12 U.S.C. 1715z-11a(a)).

    Mortgage Loan Sale Procedure

    HUD selected a competitive sale as the method to sell the Mortgage Loans. This method of sale optimizes HUD's return on the sale of these Mortgage Loans, affords the greatest opportunity for all qualified bidders to bid on the Mortgage Loans, and provides the most efficient vehicle for HUD to dispose of the Mortgage Loans.

    Bidder Eligibility

    In order to bid in the sale, a prospective bidder must complete, execute and submit both a Confidentiality Agreement and a Qualification Statement acceptable to HUD. The following individuals and entities are among those ineligible to bid on the Mortgage Loans being sold in MHLS 2018-2:

    1. A mortgagor, including its principals, affiliates, family members, and assigns, with respect to one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale, or an Active Shareholder (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement);

    2. Any individual or entity, and any Related Party (as such term is defined in the Qualification Statement) of such individual or entity, that is a mortgagor or operator with respect to any of HUD's multifamily and/or healthcare programs (excluding the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale) and that has failed to file financial statements or is otherwise in default under such mortgage loan or is in violation or noncompliance of any regulatory or business agreements with HUD and fails to cure such default or violation by no later than August 1, 2018;

    3. Any individual or entity that is debarred, suspended, or excluded from doing business with HUD pursuant to Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2424;

    4. Any contractor, subcontractor and/or consultant or advisor (including any agent, employee, partner, director, principal or affiliate of any of the foregoing) who performed services for, or on behalf of, HUD in connection with MHLS 2018-2;

    5. Any employee of HUD, a member of such employee's family, or an entity owned or controlled by any such employee or member of such an employee's family;

    6. Any individual or entity that uses the services, directly or indirectly, of any person or entity ineligible under provisions (3) through (5) above to assist in preparing its bid on any Mortgage Loan;

    7. An FHA-approved mortgagee, including any principals, affiliates, or assigns thereof, that has received FHA insurance benefits for one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale;

    8. An FHA-approved mortgagee and/or loan servicer, including any principals, affiliates, or assigns thereof, that originated one or more of the Mortgage Loans being offered in the Loan Sale if the Mortgage Loan defaulted within two years of origination and resulted in the payment of an FHA insurance claim;

    9. Any affiliate, principal or employee of any person or entity that, within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, serviced any Mortgage Loan or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD;

    10. Any contractor or subcontractor to HUD that otherwise had access to information concerning any Mortgage Loan on behalf of HUD or provided services to any person or entity which, within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, had access to information with respect to the Mortgage Loan on behalf of HUD; and/or

    11. Any employee, officer, director or any other person that provides or will provide services to the prospective bidder with respect to the Mortgage Loans during any warranty period established for the Loan Sale, that serviced the Mortgage Loans or performed other services for or on behalf of HUD or within the two-year period prior to August 1, 2018, provided services to any person or entity which serviced, performed services or otherwise had access to information with respect to any Mortgage Loan for or on behalf of HUD.

    Other entities/individuals not described herein may also be restricted from bidding on the Mortgage Loans, as fully detailed in the Qualification Statement.

    The Qualification Statement provides further details pertaining to eligibility requirements. Prospective bidders should carefully review the Qualification Statement to determine whether they are eligible to submit bids on the Mortgage Loans in MHLS 2018-2.

    Freedom of Information Act Requests

    HUD reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to disclose information regarding MHLS 2018-2, including, but not limited to, the identity of any successful bidder and its bid price or bid percentage for the Mortgage Loans, upon the closing of the sale of the Mortgage Loans. Even if HUD elects not to publicly disclose any information relating to MHLS 2018-2, HUD will have the right to disclose any information that HUD is obligated to disclose pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and all regulations promulgated thereunder.

    Scope of Notice

    This notice applies to MHLS 2018-2 and does not establish HUD's policy for the sale of other mortgage loans.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing—FHA Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15630 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2018-N082; FXES11140800000-189-FF08E00000] Green Diamond Resource Company Proposed Forest Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, CA AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Green Diamond Resource Company of Korbel, California (applicant), has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and issuance of a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). We advise the public of the availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), which covers the northern spotted owl and three other species, and the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), for public review and comment. The HCP covers forest management, species management, and monitoring activity on commercial timberland in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, California.

    DATES:

    We will receive public comments on the HCP and DEIS until September 6, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may obtain the documents by the following methods.

    Internet: https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/HCP.htm.

    Public libraries: Electronic copies of the documents will be available for viewing at Del Norte and Humboldt County Libraries on their public access computer stations. In Del Norte County, the documents will be available in the Main Library in Crescent City and in the branch library in Smith River. In Humboldt County, the documents will be at the Eureka Main Library, and at branch libraries in Arcata, McKinleyville, and Willow Creek.

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods. Please include your contact information.

    Email: [email protected]

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Jennifer L. Norris, Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521-4573.

    Fax: 707-822-8411.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Norris, Assistant Field Supervisor, by phone at 707-822-7201, or via U.S. mail to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521-4573.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Green Diamond Resource Company of Korbel, California (applicant), has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The applicant is applying for a new incidental take permit to replace an existing 30-year permit that is due to expire in 2022. The applicant is requesting a permit for incidental take of four animal species during the proposed 50-year permit. The permit is needed to authorize incidental take of listed animal species resulting from covered activities. Additionally, the Applicant has applied for the issuance of a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 21.23) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in support of research to determine whether removal of barred owls (Strix varia) can be scaled up to the Plan Area level for the benefit of northern spotted owls. The applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) area encompasses 357,412 acres of commercial timberland in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, California.

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we advise the public of the availability of the proposed HCP and our draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species federally listed as endangered or threatened. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the ESA as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). “Harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under limited circumstances, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take that is not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects over 1000 species of birds, including the barred owl. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. As authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Service may issue permits for scientific collecting (50 CFR 21.23). Migratory bird permits are issued by the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices. The permit for this experiment would be issued by the USFWS Pacific Southwest Region in Sacramento, California.

    The proposed incidental take permit would cover one bird species, the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), which is federally listed as threatened. Three mammal species are also proposed to be covered; these species have no Federal listing status, and are the fisher (Pekania pennanti), red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), and Sonoma vole (Arborimus pomo).

    To determine whether removal of barred owls can be scaled up to the Plan Area level for the benefit of northern spotted owls, a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit for barred owl is proposed.

    The HCP area encompasses 357,412 acres. The HCP and permit contain conservation measures considered necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts, to the maximum extent practicable, of the potential taking of federally listed species to be covered by the HCP and the habitats upon which they depend. The covered activities under the HCP are those associated with commercial forest management within the plan area.

    National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    The DEIS analyzes four land management alternatives. These include a “no action” alternative, which allows the existing 30-year incidental take permit to expire at the end of its term in 2022 with no permit replacement. The proposed action consists of a four-species HCP and associated permit with a 50-year term. Two other “action” alternatives are included. Alternatives A and B evaluate a single-species HCP and 50-year permit for the northern spotted owl only. Alternative B is unique from Alternative A, as it proposes a shift in company policy from even-aged forest management toward uneven-aged forest management.

    Public Review

    Any comments we receive will become part of the decision record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 21.23), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Michael Fris, Assistant Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15660 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G] Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice publishes the current list of 573 Tribal entities recognized and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes. The list is updated from the notice published on January 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Laurel Iron Cloud, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to Section 104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally acknowledged Indian Tribes in the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Amendments to the list include formatting edits, name changes and name corrections. The addition of six tribes to the list of Indian entities results from the January 29, 2018 enactment of the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. The legislation recognized the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division, the Monacan Indian Nation, the Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., and the Upper Mattaponi Tribe.

    To aid in identifying tribal name changes and corrections, the Tribe's previously listed or former name is included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. We will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.

    The listed Indian entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Tribes. We have continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.

    Dated: June 20, 2018. John Tahsuda, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Exercising the authority of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. INDIAN TRIBAL ENTITIES WITHIN THE CONTIGUOUS 48 STATES RECOGNIZED AND ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SERVICES FROM THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California Ak-Chin Indian Community (previously listed as the Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona) Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas) Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Alturas Indian Rancheria, California Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming Aroostook Band of Micmacs (previously listed as the Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians) Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation) Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Big Lagoon Rancheria, California Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley (previously listed as the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine Reservation, California) Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians of California (previously listed as the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California) Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Big Valley Rancheria, California Bishop Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony, California) Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana Blue Lake Rancheria, California Bridgeport Indian Colony (previously listed as the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California) Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Burns Paiute Tribe (previously listed as the Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon) Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, California Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria Cahuilla Band of Indians (previously listed as the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, California) California Valley Miwok Tribe, California Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, California Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Barona Reservation, California; Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians of the Viejas Reservation, California) Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba Tribe of South Carolina) Cayuga Nation Cedarville Rancheria, California Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California Cherokee Nation Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma (previously listed as the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota Chickahominy Indian Tribe Chickahominy Indian Tribe—Eastern Division Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana) Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Cocopah Tribe of Arizona Coeur D'Alene Tribe (previously listed as the Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation, Idaho) Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California Comanche Nation, Oklahoma Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation) Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon) Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon Coquille Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Coquille Tribe of Oregon) Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (previously listed as the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon) Cowlitz Indian Tribe Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota Crow Tribe of Montana Delaware Nation, Oklahoma Delaware Tribe of Indians Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California (previously listed as the Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming (previously listed as the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming) Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, California Elk Valley Rancheria, California Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, California Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California Fort Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence Reservation, California Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation, Nevada and Oregon Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Arizona Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan Greenville Rancheria (previously listed as the Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California) Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California Guidiville Rancheria of California Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, California Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Hoh Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation, Washington) Hoopa Valley Tribe, California Hopi Tribe of Arizona Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, California (formerly Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria, California) Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, California (previously listed as the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation) Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, California Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California) Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Jamul Indian Village of California Jena Band of Choctaw Indians Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation Karuk Tribe (previously listed as the Karuk Tribe of California) Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, California Kaw Nation, Oklahoma Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo) Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan Kialegee Tribal Town Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma Klamath Tribes Kletsel Dehe Band of Wintun Indians (previously listed as the Cortina Indian Rancheria and the Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California) Koi Nation of Northern California (previously listed as the Lower Lake Rancheria, California) Kootenai Tribe of Idaho La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California (previously listed as the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the La Jolla Reservation) La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, California Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Lone Pine Community of the Lone Pine Reservation, California) Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, California (previously listed as the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeno Indians of the Los Coyotes Reservation) Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota Lower Elwha Tribal Community (previously listed as the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington) Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation Lytton Rancheria of California Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester Rancheria, California (previously listed as the Manchester Band of Pomo Indians of the Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria, California) Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, California Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut) Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.) Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, California Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Miccosukee Tribe of Indians Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (previously listed as Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut) Monacan Indian Nation Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Morongo Reservation) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Reservation, Washington) Nansemond Indian Tribe Narragansett Indian Tribe Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho) Nisqually Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington) Nooksack Indian Tribe Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation (previously listed as Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation and the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie)) Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.) Oglala Sioux Tribe (previously listed as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota) Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan) Omaha Tribe of Nebraska Oneida Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin) Oneida Indian Nation (previously listed as the Oneida Nation of New York) Onondaga Nation Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes (formerly Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar City Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes)) Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada Pala Band of Mission Indians (previously listed as the Pala Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pala Reservation, California) Pamunkey Indian Tribe Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California Passamaquoddy Tribe Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California Penobscot Nation (previously listed as the Penobscot Tribe of Maine) Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California Pinoleville Pomo Nation, California (previously listed as the Pinoleville Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Pit River Tribe, California (includes XL Ranch, Big Bend, Likely, Lookout, Montgomery Creek and Roaring Creek Rancherias) Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama) Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Ponca Tribe of Nebraska Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (previously listed as the Port Gamble Band of S'Klallam Indians) Potter Valley Tribe, California Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas) Prairie Island Indian Community in the State of Minnesota Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation of California Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation Quinault Indian Nation (previously listed as the Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington) Ramona Band of Cahuilla, California (previously listed as the Ramona Band or Village of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California) Rappahannock Tribe, Inc. Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota Redding Rancheria, California Redwood Valley or Little River Band of Pomo Indians of the Redwood Valley Rancheria California (previously listed as the Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada Resighini Rancheria, California Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation, California Robinson Rancheria (previously listed as the Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, California and the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California) Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota Round Valley Indian Tribes, Round Valley Reservation, California (previously listed as the Round Valley Indian Tribes of the Round Valley Reservation, California) Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (previously listed as the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona Samish Indian Nation (previously listed as the Samish Indian Tribe, Washington) San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California (previously listed as the San Manual Band of Serrano Mission Indians of the San Manual Reservation) San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Santa Rosa Reservation) Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California Santee Sioux Nation, Nebraska Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)) Seneca Nation of Indians (previously listed as the Seneca Nation of New York) Seneca-Cayuga Nation (previously listed as the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma) Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota Shawnee Tribe Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California Shinnecock Indian Nation Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Shoalwater Bay Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation, Washington) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota Skokomish Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Skokomish Indian Tribe of the Skokomish Reservation, Washington) Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Snoqualmie Tribe, Washington) Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, California Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians of Washington (previously listed as the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington) Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation Susanville Indian Rancheria, California Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (previously listed as the Swinomish Indians of the Swinomish Reservation of Washington) Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Table Mountain Rancheria (previously listed as the Table Mountain Rancheria of California) Tejon Indian Tribe Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band) The Chickasaw Nation The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma The Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma The Muscogee (Creek) Nation The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) The Quapaw Tribe of Indians The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (previously listed as the Death Valley Timbi-sha Shoshone Tribe and the Death Valley Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California) Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation (previously listed as the Smith River Rancheria, California) Tonawanda Band of Seneca (previously listed as the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York) Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California (previously listed as the Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California) Tulalip Tribes of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulalip Reservation, Washington) Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota Tuscarora Nation Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Upper Mattaponi Tribe Upper Sioux Community, Minnesota Upper Skagit Indian Tribe Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah) Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation, California Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community & Washoe Ranches) White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma Wilton Rancheria, California Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada Wiyot Tribe, California (previously listed as the Table Bluff Reservation—Wiyot Tribe) Wyandotte Nation Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Arizona Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (previously listed as the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation, Arizona) Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony & Campbell Ranch, Nevada Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, California (previously listed as the Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California) Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas) Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico NATIVE ENTITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF ALASKA RECOGNIZED AND ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SERVICES FROM THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Akiachak Native Community Akiak Native Community Alatna Village Algaaciq Native Village (St. Mary's) Allakaket Village Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor (previously listed as Native Village of Old Harbor and Village of Old Harbor) Angoon Community Association Anvik Village Arctic Village (See Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government) Asa'carsarmiut Tribe Atqasuk Village (Atkasook) Beaver Village Birch Creek Tribe Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes Chalkyitsik Village Cheesh-Na Tribe (previously listed as the Native Village of Chistochina) Chevak Native Village Chickaloon Native Village Chignik Bay Tribal Council (previously listed as the Native Village of Chignik) Chignik Lake Village Chilkat Indian Village (Klukwan) Chilkoot Indian Association (Haines) Chinik Eskimo Community (Golovin) Chuloonawick Native Village Circle Native Community Craig Tribal Association (previously listed as the Craig Community Association) Curyung Tribal Council Douglas Indian Association Egegik Village Eklutna Native Village Emmonak Village Evansville Village (aka Bettles Field) Galena Village (aka Louden Village) Gulkana Village Council (previously listed as Gulkana Village) Healy Lake Village Holy Cross Village Hoonah Indian Association Hughes Village Huslia Village Hydaburg Cooperative Association Igiugig Village Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope Iqurmuit Traditional Council Ivanof Bay Tribe (previously listed as the Ivanoff Bay Tribe and the Ivanoff Bay Village) Kaguyak Village Kaktovik Village (aka Barter Island) Kasigluk Traditional Elders Council Kenaitze Indian Tribe Ketchikan Indian Corporation King Island Native Community King Salmon Tribe Klawock Cooperative Association Knik Tribe Kokhanok Village Koyukuk Native Village Levelock Village Lime Village Manley Hot Springs Village Manokotak Village McGrath Native Village Mentasta Traditional Council Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve Naknek Native Village Native Village of Afognak Native Village of Akhiok Native Village of Akutan Native Village of Aleknagik Native Village of Ambler Native Village of Atka Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government Native Village of Belkofski Native Village of Brevig Mission Native Village of Buckland Native Village of Cantwell Native Village of Chenega (aka Chanega) Native Village of Chignik Lagoon Native Village of Chitina Native Village of Chuathbaluk (Russian Mission, Kuskokwim) Native Village of Council Native Village of Deering Native Village of Diomede (aka Inalik) Native Village of Eagle Native Village of Eek Native Village of Ekuk Native Village of Ekwok (previously listed as Ekwok Village) Native Village of Elim Native Village of Eyak (Cordova) Native Village of False Pass Native Village of Fort Yukon Native Village of Gakona Native Village of Gambell Native Village of Georgetown Native Village of Goodnews Bay Native Village of Hamilton Native Village of Hooper Bay Native Village of Kanatak Native Village of Karluk Native Village of Kiana Native Village of Kipnuk Native Village of Kivalina Native Village of Kluti Kaah (aka Copper Center) Native Village of Kobuk Native Village of Kongiganak Native Village of Kotzebue Native Village of Koyuk Native Village of Kwigillingok Native Village of Kwinhagak (aka Quinhagak) Native Village of Larsen Bay Native Village of Marshall (aka Fortuna Ledge) Native Village of Mary's Igloo Native Village of Mekoryuk Native Village of Minto Native Village of Nanwalek (aka English Bay) Native Village of Napaimute Native Village of Napakiak Native Village of Napaskiak Native Village of Nelson Lagoon Native Village of Nightmute Native Village of Nikolski Native Village of Noatak Native Village of Nuiqsut (aka Nooiksut) Native Village of Nunam Iqua (previously listed as the Native Village of Sheldon's Point) Native Village of Nunapitchuk Native Village of Ouzinkie Native Village of Paimiut Native Village of Perryville Native Village of Pilot Point Native Village of Pitka's Point Native Village of Point Hope Native Village of Point Lay Native Village of Port Graham Native Village of Port Heiden Native Village of Port Lions Native Village of Ruby Native Village of Saint Michael Native Village of Savoonga Native Village of Scammon Bay Native Village of Selawik Native Village of Shaktoolik Native Village of Shishmaref Native Village of Shungnak Native Village of Stevens Native Village of Tanacross Native Village of Tanana Native Village of Tatitlek Native Village of Tazlina Native Village of Teller Native Village of Tetlin Native Village of Tuntutuliak Native Village of Tununak Native Village of Tyonek Native Village of Unalakleet Native Village of Unga Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (Arctic Village and Village of Venetie) Native Village of Wales Native Village of White Mountain Nenana Native Association New Koliganek Village Council New Stuyahok Village Newhalen Village Newtok Village Nikolai Village Ninilchik Village Nome Eskimo Community Nondalton Village Noorvik Native Community Northway Village Nulato Village Nunakauyarmiut Tribe Organized Village of Grayling (aka Holikachuk) Organized Village of Kake Organized Village of Kasaan Organized Village of Kwethluk Organized Village of Saxman Orutsararmiut Traditional Native Council (previously listed as Orutsararmuit Native Village (aka Bethel)) Oscarville Traditional Village Pauloff Harbor Village Pedro Bay Village Petersburg Indian Association Pilot Station Traditional Village Platinum Traditional Village Portage Creek Village (aka Ohgsenakale) Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands Qagan Tayagungin Tribe of Sand Point Village Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska Rampart Village Saint George Island (See Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands) Saint Paul Island (See Pribilof Islands Aleut Communities of St. Paul & St. George Islands) Seldovia Village Tribe Shageluk Native Village Sitka Tribe of Alaska Skagway Village South Naknek Village Stebbins Community Association Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak (previously listed as the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak) Takotna Village Tangirnaq Native Village (formerly Lesnoi Village (aka Woody Island)) Telida Village Traditional Village of Togiak Tuluksak Native Community Twin Hills Village Ugashik Village Umkumiut Native Village (previously listed as Umkumiute Native Village) Village of Alakanuk Village of Anaktuvuk Pass Village of Aniak Village of Atmautluak Village of Bill Moore's Slough Village of Chefornak Village of Clarks Point Village of Crooked Creek Village of Dot Lake Village of Iliamna Village of Kalskag Village of Kaltag Village of Kotlik Village of Lower Kalskag Village of Ohogamiut Village of Red Devil Village of Salamatoff Village of Sleetmute Village of Solomon Village of Stony River Village of Venetie (See Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government) Village of Wainwright Wrangell Cooperative Association Yakutat Tlingit Tribe Yupiit of Andreafski
    [FR Doc. 2018-15679 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2018-0034] Public Input Requested on Potential Impacts to Historic Priorities: Sand Resource Assessment and Borrow Area Identification, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Request for public input.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) invites public input on the identification of historic properties or potential impacts to historic properties from a comprehensive research program of sand resource and borrow area identification on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Sand resources are identified using geophysical and geological (G&G) surveys, which constitute undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    DATES:

    BOEM must receive your comments by August 13, 2018 for your comments to be considered. BOEM requests comments to be postmarked or delivered by this same date. BOEM will consider only those comments received that conform to this requirement.

    ADDRESSES: Comments and other submissions of information may be submitted by either of the following two methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry entitled, “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter BOEM-2018-0034, and then click “search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related materials available for this notice.

    2. Written comments may be delivered by hand or by mail, enclosed in an envelope labeled, “Sand Resources Assessment Section 106,” to Deputy Preservation Officer, Office of Environmental Programs, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandi Carrier, BOEM, Office of Environmental Programs, 45600 Woodland Road (VAM-OREP), Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1623 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: This request for public input concerns an action BOEM is taking pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1346.

    1 Background

    BOEM's Marine Minerals Program partners with communities to address serious erosion along coastal beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and wetlands. Erosion affects natural resources, energy, defense, public infrastructure, and tourism. To help address this problem, BOEM provides sand, gravel, and/or shell resources from the Federal OCS for shore protection, beach nourishment, and wetlands restoration with vigorous safety and environmental oversight, as authorized by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).

    BOEM is proposing a comprehensive research program for sand resource and borrow area identification to properly identify and manage OCS sand resources, and to enable both long-term and emergency planning goals. The study will use state-of-the-art technology and methods to collect and analyze data, and will incorporate a rigorous mitigation strategy to minimize environmental effects. The field work will use G&G surveys to: (1) Identify potential OCS sand resources at a reconnaissance-scale; (2) delineate geographically focused areas as potential borrow areas at a design-level; (3) monitor specific borrow areas and investigate for the presence of objects of archaeological significance, munitions of explosive concern, and hard bottom or other sensitive benthic habitat in the vicinity of potential borrow areas; and (4) collect scientific data on changes in sand resources. The study could occur anywhere on the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico OCS between the Submerged Lands Act Boundary to the 50 meter bathymetric contour; activities under cooperative agreements (authorized by 43 U.S.C. 1345(e)) with Atlantic and Gulf states may cross the state/Federal boundary. Additional information is available at https://www.boem.gov/Building-a-National-Offshore-Sand-Inventory/.

    2 Description of the Proposed Undertaking

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108), and the act's implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800), require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. As part of this review, BOEM will consult with state historic preservation officers, tribal officials, and others. BOEM is now reaching out to the general public for comment regarding the potential presence of historic properties or potential effects on historic properties from the surveys and other activities used in the study. This information will allow BOEM to consider and document historic preservation concerns early, and allow the agency to consider the views of the public in the decision making process.

    This study will involve two different types of sand surveys, each with a different potential to affect historic properties:

    (1) Geophysical surveys are conducted to obtain information about shallow sediment stratigraphy, shallow hazards (such as presence of munitions of explosive concern or buried cables), archaeological resources, and sensitive benthic habitats. Typical equipment used in these surveys includes sub-bottom profilers, swath bathymetric sonars, side-scan sonars, and magnetometers. Geophysical surveys do not have the potential to affect historic properties.

    (2) Geological surveys involve seafloor-disturbing activities, such as sample collection through use of grab samples or a platform-mounted vibracore, which are conducted to evaluate the quality of mineral resources for their intended use as sand resources. Vibracores are shallow in nature, focusing on characterizing the sand layer, and penetrate to a depth of no more than 20 ft (6 m) or the extent of the sand layer. The seafloor-disturbing portions of the geological surveys may have the potential to affect historic properties on the OCS, so BOEM is requesting public input on the existence and location of historic properties on the OCS and on the potential effects geologic surveys could have on any such historic properties.

    Once beach quality sand resource areas have been identified, these sand resources could be available to local, state, and Federal agencies for beach nourishment, and coastal restoration to provide protection of infrastructure, create coastal habitat, and reduce damage caused by storms, currents, and waves. Those potential future actions would undergo a separate Section 106 consultation process if they are determined to be undertakings under 36 CFR part 800, with additional opportunities for public comment.

    3 Description of the Study Area

    The potential Study Area lies within the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico OCS, from the Submerged Lands Act boundary to 50 m (164 ft) deep. Sand survey activities will not occur across the entire Study Area simultaneously, but will be of limited spatial extent at any one time. The Study Area includes adjacent transit corridors used for mobilization, and demobilization, and access to support bases. Sensitive and protected areas, such as within Cape Cod Bay, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary are specifically excluded.

    Prior to commencing sand survey activities, BOEM will coordinate with coastal states, Federal stakeholders, and relevant regional planning bodies to determine areas with the greatest potential need for OCS sand resources and the greatest data gaps, in order to identify priority survey sites. A detailed survey and sampling plan will be developed prior to undertaking any sand survey activities; this plan will define the geographic scope and relative timing of the proposed activities.

    Similar resource area identification and delineation activities could occur on state submerged lands, but these undertakings would be separately analyzed in project-specific environmental reviews, under the direction of the appropriate lead entity. BOEM may enter into cooperative agreements with Atlantic and Gulf states to assist in the inventory of offshore sand resources, which may cross the state/Federal boundaries. BOEM's authorization of an agreement to use sand resources in a given borrow area, including for beach nourishment and wetlands reconstruction, would be considered a separate action. Any such proposed undertakings, if received by BOEM, would be considered individually and would subject to a separate environmental review and Section 106 consultation process.

    4 Requested Information From the Public

    BOEM requests specific and detailed comments from the public and other interested or affected parties on the identification of historic properties or potential effects to historic properties from the proposed G&G survey activities. This information will inform BOEM's review of this and future undertakings under Section 106 of the NHPA.

    5 Protection of Sensitive, Privileged, or Confidential Information 5.1 Freedom of Information Act

    BOEM will protect sensitive, privileged, or confidential information that you submit when required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    5.2 Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 307103)

    Exemption 3 of FOIA applies to information specifically exempted from disclosure by a statute other than FOIA, but only if the other statute's disclosure prohibition is absolute. Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act at 54 U.S.C. 307103 requires the head of a Federal agency, after consultation with the Secretary, to withhold from disclosure to the public information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property if the Secretary and the agency determine that disclosure may—(1) cause a significant invasion of privacy; (2) risk harm to the historic property; or (3) impede the use of a traditional religious site by practitioners. If you wish BOEM to withhold such information from disclosure, clearly mark it and request that BOEM treat it as confidential. BOEM will not disclose such information if it qualifies for exemption from disclosure under FOIA. Please label privileged or confidential information “Contains Confidential Information.” In particular, tribal entities should designate information that falls under Section 304 of NHPA as confidential.

    5.3 Personal Identifying Information

    BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. You should be aware that your entire comment, including your name, address, and your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. In order for BOEM to withhold your personal identifying information from disclosure, you must identify any information contained in the submittal of your comments that, if released, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also briefly describe any possible harmful consequence(s) of the disclosure of information, such as embarrassment, injury or other harm.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Walter D. Cruickshank, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15669 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1047] Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Review in Part a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Briefing; Extension of Target Date AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The Commission has also set a schedule for briefing. Additionally, Commission has determined to extend the target date for the completion of the investigation to September 19, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,310,104; 7,342,967; 7,590,059; 8,068,171; and 8,284,844. Id. The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents MediaTek Inc. of Hsinchu City, Taiwan, MediaTek USA Inc. of San Jose, California, and MStar Semiconductor Inc. of ChuPei Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan (together, “MediaTek”); Sigma Designs, Inc. of Fremont, California (“Sigma”); LG Electronics Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (together, “LG”); Funai Electric Company, Ltd., of Osaka, Japan, Funai Corporation, Inc. of Rutherford, New Jersey, and P&F USA, Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia (together, “Funai”); and Vizio, Inc., of Irvine, California (“Vizio”). Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in this investigation. Id.

    Several parties were terminated from the investigation based on settlement. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to Funai, Order No. 31 (Nov. 7, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 12, 2017); MediaTek, Order No. 35 (Nov. 29, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Dec. 19, 2017); and LG, Order No. 42 (Apr. 9, 2018), not reviewed Notice (May 4, 2018). Accordingly, only respondents Sigma and Vizio (together, “Respondents”) remained in the investigation at the time of the final ID.

    The Commission also terminated two patents and several claims based on Broadcom's partial withdrawal of the complaint. Specifically, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the '967 patent, the '171 patent, claims 21-30 of the '059 patent, and claim 14 of the '844 patent. Order No. 24 (Oct. 10, 2017), not reviewed Notice (Oct. 24, 2017). Broadcom also elected to withdraw claims 5 and 11-13 of the '844 patent in its post-hearing brief. ID at 7. Accordingly, at the time of the final ID, the only remaining claims were 1, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 22 of the '104 patent; claims 1-4, 6-10, of the '844 patent; and claims 11-20 of the '059 patent.

    On May 11, 2018, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, he found that Respondents did not infringe any claim, that the asserted claims of the '844 patent are invalid, and that Broadcom did not satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '104 patent.

    On May 29, 2018, Broadcom and Respondents each petitioned for review of the ID. On June 6, 2018, the parties opposed each other's petitions.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the following issues: (1) The construction of “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” in claim 1 of the '844 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (2) the finding that Fandrianto satisfies the limitation “adapted to perform a decoding function on a digital media stream” of claim 1 of the '844 patent; (3) the construction of “the blended graphics image” in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; (4) the construction of “blend the blended graphics image with the video image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values” in claim 1 of the '104 patent, as well as related issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the limitation; and (5) the finding that claims 1 and 10 of the '104 patent would be rendered obvious by Gloudemans in view of Porter & Duff under Broadcom's proposed claim constructions.

    The parties are requested to brief their positions on the issues under view with reference to applicable law and the evidentiary record. In connection with its review, the Commission is interested in briefing on the following issues:

    1. Should the construction of the term “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” of the '844 patent include the concept of “orchestrate,” and what is the difference between “control” and “orchestrate” in the context of this patent?

    2. Should the construction of the term “a processor adapted to control a decoding process” of the '844 patent include the concept of a “pipeline” or “stage”?

    3. In construing the term “blend the blended graphics image with the video image using the alpha values and/or at least one value derived from the alpha values” in claim 1 of the '104 patent, under what legal theory (if any) may the Commission base its construction upon Broadcom's arguments in the district court case Broadcom Corp. v. SiRF Technology, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-00546-JVS-MLG (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2010)?

    4. If your responses to the questions above contend that one or more of the final ID's claim constructions should be changed, please explain how each change in claim construction would impact the issues of infringement, invalidity, and the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

    The parties have been invited to brief only the discrete issues described above, with reference to the applicable law and evidentiary record. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) (Commission Opinion).

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation. The Commission is particularly interested in briefing on the following issue:

    1. If the Commission were to issue remedial orders in this investigation, could the demand for the excluded articles be fulfilled by others?

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation are requested to file written submissions on the issues identified in this notice. Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding, which issued on May 23, 2018. Broadcom is also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Broadcom is additionally requested to state the date that the '059, '844 and '104 patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under which the subject articles are imported, and to supply a list of known importers of the subject articles. The written submissions, exclusive of any exhibits, must not exceed 60 pages, and must be filed no later than close of business on July 27, 2018. Reply submissions must not exceed 30 pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on August 3, 2018. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1047”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf.) Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    1 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 17, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15635 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1124] Institution of Investigation: Certain Powered Cover Plates AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 20, 2018, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of SnapRays, LLC d/b/a SnapPower of Vineyard, Utah. Supplements to the Complaint were filed on July 6, July 11, and July 12, 2018. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain powered cover plates by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,871,324 (“the '324 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,917,430 (“the '430 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,882,361 (“the '361 patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D819,426 (“the '426 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2018).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on July 17, 2018, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, and 19 of the '324 patent; claims 1-3, 7, 8, 18, and 19 of the '430 patent; claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, and 24 of the '361 patent; and the sole claim of the '426 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “powered cover plates, which are electrical receptacle covers with built-in functionality”;

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: SnapRays, LLC d/b/a SnapPower, 426 East 1750 North, Unit D, Vineyard, UT 84057.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Ontel Products Corporation, 21 Law Dr., Fairfield, NJ 07871 Dazone LLC, 1141 East Acacia Ct., Ontario, CA 91761-4519 Shenzhen C-Myway, Saige Science Park #4, Futian, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China E-Zshop4u LLC, 9335 San Jose Blvd., Howey in the Hills, FL 34737 Desteny Store, 10840 Tiberio Dr., Fort Meyers, FL 33913 Zhongshan Led-Up Light Co. Ltd., 6016A, Bldg. B5, No. 133, Yunhan Rd., Qijiang Rd., Shaxi Town, Zhongshan, Guangdong, China AllTrade Tools LLC, 6122 KateIla Ave., Cypress, CA 90630 Guangzhou Sailu Info Tech. Co., Ltd., Nan Hang Huo Yun Da Lou Yuan Nei Can, 3 Hao YunXiao Lu, Bai Yun Qu 510400, Guangzhou Gunagdong China NEPCI—Zhejiang New-Epoch, Communication Industry Co., Ltd., Develop Road, Wengyang Industry Zone, Yueging, Zhejiang, China KCC Industries, 4950 Goodman Way, Eastvale, CA 91752-5087 Vistek Technology Co., Ltd., Rm 605, No. 278 Yongzheng Bldg., Defeng Rd., Fuyong, Baoan, Shenzhen, China 518103 Enstant Technology Co., Ltd., A525 Boaoan Smart Valley, YinTian Rd, Xixiang Baoan District, Shenzhen, China 518105 Manufacturers Components Incorporated, 1721 Blount Road, #2, Pompano Beach, FL 33069

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 18, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15695 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Review)] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.

    DATES:

    July 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this proceeding may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On February 5, 2018, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews should proceed (83 FR 8296, February 26, 2018); accordingly, full reviews are being scheduled pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's website.

    Participation in the reviews and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this proceeding as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 25, 2018, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on November 15, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before November 5, 2018. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on November 7, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is November 5, 2018. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is November 27, 2018. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before November 27, 2018. On December 21, 2018, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before January 2, 2019, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    The Commission has determined that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: July 18, 2018.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15708 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-989 (Enforcement)] Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Amending the Complaint and Notice of Enforcement Proceeding To Reflect a Corporate Name Change AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 46) amending the complaint and Notice of Enforcement Proceeding to reflect a corporate name change.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ron Traud, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3427. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (“EDIS”) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal, telephone 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 14, 2016, the Commission instituted the original investigation based on a complaint filed by Nautilus Hyosung Inc. (now Hyosung TNS Inc.) of Seoul, Republic of Korea, and Nautilus Hyosung America Inc. of Irving, Texas (collectively, “Nautilus”). 81 FR 13149 (Mar. 14, 2016). Pertinent to this action, the complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the United States, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of any of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235 (“the '235 patent”). Id. The complaint also alleged infringement of claims 1-3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,891,551; claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,655; and claims 1-4, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,152,165. Those claims were subsequently terminated from the investigation. See Order No. 11 (June 30, 2016), Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (July 27, 2016); Order No. 17 (July 21, 2016), Comm'n Notice of Non-Review (August 16, 2016). The notice of institution of the investigation named Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated and Diebold Self-Service Systems, both of North Canton, Ohio (collectively, “Diebold”), as respondents. 81 FR 13149; 82 FR 13501 (Mar. 13, 2017). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was not named as a party. 81 FR 13149.

    On July 14, 2017, the Commission found a section 337 violation as to the '235 patent and issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) as well as cease and desist orders (“CDOs”). 82 FR 33513 (July 20, 2017). The LEO prohibits the unlicensed entry of automated teller machines, ATM modules, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 9 of the '235 patent that are manufactured by, or on behalf of, or are imported by or on behalf of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, Diebold Self-Service Systems, or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, agents, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. Id. The CDOs prohibit, among other things, the importation, sale, and distribution of infringing products by Diebold. Id.

    On December 22, 2017, the Commission instituted the subject enforcement proceeding based on a complaint filed by Nautilus, alleging that Diebold violated the July 14, 2017, remedial orders issued in the original investigation and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. 82 FR 60762 (Dec. 22, 2017). Diebold is named as a respondent, and OUII is named as a party. Id.

    On June 22, 2018, the presiding administrative law judge issued Order No. 46, the subject ID, which granted an unopposed motion filed by Nautilus to amend the complaint and the Commission's Notice of Enforcement Proceeding to reflect the corporate name change of Nautilus Hyosung Inc. to Hyosung TNS Inc. No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 17, 2018. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15615 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 18, 2018, Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC, 3031 Red Lion Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

    Controlled substance Drug code Schedule Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid 2010 I

    The company plans to import finished dosage unit products containing gamma-hydroxybutyric acid for clinical trials, research, and analytical activities.

    Dated: July 12, 2018 John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15719 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 13, 2018, VHG Labs DBA LGC Standards, 3 Perimeter Road, Manchaster NH 03103 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

    Controlled substance Drug code Schedule 3-Fluoro-N-methylcathinone (3-FMC) 1233 I Cathinone 1235 I Methcathinone 1237 I 4-Fluoro-N-methylcathinone (4-FMC) 1238 I Pentedrone (α-methylaminovalerophenone) 1246 I Mephedrone (4-Methyl-N-methylcathinone) 1248 I 4-Methyl-N-ethylcathinone (4-MEC) 1249 I Naphyrone 1258 I N-Ethylamphetamine 1475 I 4-Methylaminorex (cis isomer) 1590 I Methaqualone 2565 I JWH-250 (1-Pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl) indole) 6250 I SR-18 (Also known as RCS-8) (1-Cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl) indole) 7008 I APINACA and AKB48 N-(1-Adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide 7048 I JWH-081 (1-Pentyl-3-(1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl) indole) 7081 I SR-19 (Also known as RCS-4) (1-Pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl] indole 7104 I JWH-018 (also known as AM678) (1-Pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole) 7118 I JWH-122 (1-Pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl) indole) 7122 I UR-144 (1-Pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone 7144 I AM2201 (1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl) indole) 7201 I JWH-203 (1-Pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl) indole) 7203 I Ibogaine 7260 I Lysergic acid diethylamide 7315 I 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine (2C-T-7) 7348 I Marihuana 7360 I Mescaline 7381 I 2-(4-Ethylthio-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) ethanamine (2C-T-2 ) 7385 I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine 7391 I 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine 7392 I JWH-398 (1-Pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl) indole) 7398 I 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine 7400 I N-Hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine 7402 I 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine 7404 I 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine 7405 I 4-Methoxyamphetamine 7411 I 5-Methoxy-N-N-dimethyltryptamine 7431 I Alpha-methyltryptamine 7432 I Bufotenine 7433 I Dimethyltryptamine 7435 I Psilocyn 7438 I N-Benzylpiperazine 7493 I 4-Methyl-alphapyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP) 7498 I 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl) ethanamine (2C-E ) 7509 I 2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) ethanamine (2C-I) 7518 I 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) ethanamine (2C-C) 7519 I MDPV (3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone) 7535 I 2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) ethanamine (25C-NBOMe) 7537 I Methylone (3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone) 7540 I Butylone 7541 I Pentylone 7542 I alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP) 7545 I AM-694 (1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl) indole) 7694 I Codeine-N-oxide 9053 I Desomorphine 9055 I Dihydromorphine 9145 I Heroin 9200 I Morphine-N-oxide 9307 I Normorphine 9313 I Pholcodine 9314 I Dipipanone 9622 I Properidine 9644 I Tilidine 9750 I Alpha-methylfentanyl 9814 I Methamphetamine 1105 II Phenmetrazine 1631 II Amobarbital 2125 II Pentobarbital 2270 II Secobarbital 2315 II Glutethimide 2550 II Phencyclidine 7471 II Phenylacetone 8501 II Alphaprodine 9010 II Dihydrocodeine 9120 II Diphenoxylate 9170 II Ecgonine 9180 II Ethylmorphine 9190 II Levorphanol 9220 II Isomethadone 9226 II Meperidine 9230 II Meperidine intermediate-B 9233 II Meperidine intermediate-C 9234 II Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) 9273 II 14-Hydroxmorphone 9665 II Noroxymorphone 9668 II Remifentanil 9739 II Sufentanil 9740 II

    The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substance. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) (2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non- approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15721 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Decision and Order: Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S.

    On December 22, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Tutwiler, Mississippi.1 Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC), at 1. The Show Cause Order proposes the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration on the ground that he has “no state authority to handle controlled substances.” Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).

    1 The Show Cause Order also lists a Post Office Box in Itta Bena, Mississippi in reference to Registrant's location.

    Regarding jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleges that Registrant holds DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 at the registered address of Tallahachie Cty. Correc. Fac. Den. Clin., 415 U.S. Hwy. 49 N, Tutwiler, Mississippi 38963. OSC, at 1. This registration authorizes Registrant to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Id. The Show Cause Order alleges that this registration expires on July 31, 2019. Id.

    The substantive ground for the proceeding, as alleged in the Show Cause Order, is that Registrant is “currently without authority to practice dentistry or handle controlled substances in the State of Mississippi, the state in which . . . [he is] registered with the DEA.” Id. at 2. Specifically, the Show Cause Order alleges that the Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners revoked Registrant's “license to practice dentistry” on August 16, 2017. Id.

    The Show Cause Order notifies Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notifies Registrant of the opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. OSC, at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).

    Adequacy of Service

    In a Declaration dated March 22, 2018, a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI), who describes himself as being assigned to the New Orleans Field Division, states that he and another DI “travelled to the residence of Registrant . . . to personally serve the . . . [OSC on him].” Government Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) 4 (DI Declaration), at 1. The DI also states that, “At approximately 11:30 a.m. on January 4, 2018, I personally served Registrant with the [OSC].” Id.

    In its Request for Final Agency Action dated March 27, 2018, the Government represents that “[a]t least 30 days have passed since the time the . . . [OSC] was served on Registrant . . . [and] Registrant has not requested a hearing and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding the . . . [OSC] served on him, including the filing of any written statement in lieu of a hearing.” Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), at 1. The Government requests the issuance of “a Final Order revoking Registrant's DEA registration.” Id. at 3.

    Based on the DI's Declaration, the Government's written representations, and my review of the record, I find that the Government served the OSC on Registrant on January 4, 2018. I also find that more than 30 days have now passed since the date the Government served the OSC. Further, based on the Government's written representations, I find that neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, requested a hearing, submitted a written statement while waiving Registrant's right to a hearing, or submitted a corrective action plan. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government, which constitutes the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

    Findings of Fact Registrant's DEA Registration

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 at the registered address of Tallahachie Cty. Correc. Fac. Den. Clin., 415 U.S. Hwy. 49 N, Tutwiler, Mississippi 38963. GX 1 (Certification of Registration History), at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Id. Registrant's registration expires on July 31, 2019. Id.

    The Status of Registrant's State License

    On August 16, 2017, the Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners revoked Registrant's license to practice dentistry, Dental License No. 2459-89. RFAA, at 2; GX 3 (Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners certified letter to Registrant dated August 16, 2017), at 2; GX 5 (Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners website screen print), at 1.

    According to Mississippi's online records, of which I take official notice, Registrant's license to practice dentistry is still revoked.2 Mississippi State Board of Dental Examiners website, http://www.dentalboard.ms.gov (last visited July 9, 2018). Mississippi's online records show no State controlled substance registration issued to Registrant. Id.

    2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” United States Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), “[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the contrary.” Accordingly, Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration within 20 calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion shall be filed with the Office of the Administrator and a copy shall be served on the Government. In the event Registrant files a motion, the Government shall have 20 calendar days to file a response.

    Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is neither licensed to engage in the practice of dentistry nor registered to dispense controlled substances in Mississippi, the State in which he is registered with the DEA.

    Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).

    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess State authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices. See, e.g., Hooper, supra, 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617.

    According to Mississippi statute, “Every person who desires to practice dentistry . . . in this state must obtain a license to do so.” Miss. Code Ann. § 73-9-1 (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session). Further, “[e]very person who . . . dispenses any controlled substance within this state . . . must obtain a registration issued by . . . the State Board of Dental Examiners . . . in accordance with its rules and the law of this state.” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-125(1)(a) (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session).3 See also Miss. Code Ann. § 73-9-53 (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session) (authorizing Mississippi pharmacists to fill prescriptions only of “legally licensed and registered dentists of this state for any drugs to be used in the practice of dentistry”) and Miss. Admin. Code 30-2301:1.35(1) (West, current through the Mississippi Administrative Rules Listing of Filings, dated May 2018) (legally licensed and registered dentists may write prescriptions for any drugs to be used in the practice of dentistry).

    3 “Dispensing” a controlled substance includes “prescribing” and “administering” it. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-105(j) (West, Westlaw current with laws from the 2018 Regular Session).

    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice dentistry and handle controlled substances in Mississippi. As already discussed, only a legally licensed and registered dentist may dispense a controlled substance or any drug to be used in the practice of dentistry in Mississippi. Thus, since Registrant lacks authority to practice dentistry in Mississippi, and is not registered in Mississippi to handle controlled substances, I will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.

    Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority thus vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. FB0508993 issued to Kenneth C. Beal, Jr., D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This Order is effective August 22, 2018.

    Dated: July 9, 2018. Uttam Dhillon, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15743 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 21, 2018, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 3159 Staley Road, Grand Island, New York 14072-2028 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

    Controlled substance Drug code Schedule Remifentanil 9739 II

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for narcotic material for bulk manufacture.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15750 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Applications: Shertech Laboratories, LLC ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on April 23, 2018, Shertech Laboratories, LLC, 1185 Woods Chapel Road, Duncan South Carolina 29334 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

    Controlled substance Drug Code Schedule Cocaine 9041 II

    The company plans to import synthetic derivatives of the listed controlled substance in bulk form to conduct clinical trials.

    Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C.952 (a)(2).

    Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15713 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Fisher Clinical Services, Inc. ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 22, 2018. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on June 5, 2018, Fisher Clinical Services, 700A-C Nestle Way, Breinigsville, PA 18031-1522 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

    Controlled substance Drug code Schedule Psilocybin 7437 I

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for clinical trials.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15667 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Registration ACTION:

    Notice of registration.

    SUMMARY:

    The registrant listed below has applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as an importer of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The company listed below applied to be registered as an importer of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on the previously published notice is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for this notice.

    Company FR Docket Published United States Pharmacopeial Convention 83 FR 15175 April 9, 2018.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrant to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated this company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.

    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed company.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15665 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Registration ACTION:

    Notice of registration.

    SUMMARY:

    Registrants listed below have applied for and been granted registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as importers of various classes of schedule I or II controlled substances.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The companies listed below applied to be registered as importers of various basic classes of controlled substances. Information on previously published notices is listed in the table below. No comments or objections were submitted and no requests for hearing were submitted for these notices.

    Company FR Docket Published Novitium Pharma, LLC 83 FR 13520 March 29, 2018. Rhodes Technologies 83 FR 22517 May 15, 2018. Xcelience 83 FR 22519 May 15, 2018.

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of the listed registrants to import the applicable basic classes of schedule I or II controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated each company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing each company's physical security systems, verifying each company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing each company's background and history.

    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the DEA has granted a registration as an importer for schedule I or II controlled substances to the above listed companies.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15666 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Johnson Matthey Inc. ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 21, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 31, 2018, Johnson Matthey Inc., 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class of controlled substance:

    Controlled
  • substance
  • Drug code Schedule
    Opium tincture 9630 II

    The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substance in bulk for distribution to its customers.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. John J. Martin, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15664 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1121-0255] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested; Reinstatement, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection for Which Approval Has Expired: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 21, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anthony S. Whyde, Statistician, Law Enforcement Statistics Unit, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531 (email: [email protected]; phone: 202-307-0711).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, including whether the information will have practical utility; —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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; 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. Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA). The 2018 CLETA will focus on the same topics as the 2013 collection: The number and type of law enforcement agencies served by academies, the academies' accreditation status, oversight responsibilities related to field training, reasons for recruits failing to complete their training program, and subject areas covered in the training program curricula. While there will be no content changes, BJS will modify the format and design of several survey items to improve measurement and remove questions from the 2013 survey that covered topics that may no longer be relevant.

    (2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 2018 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA).

    (3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is CJ-52. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: This information collection is a census of regional, state, and local law enforcement training academies that operated a basic training program in 2018. The 2018 survey builds upon the previous three iterations of the CLETA data collection referencing 2013, 2006, and 2002. BJS plans to field the 2018 CLETA from January through August 2019. The information will provide national statistics on staff, recruits/trainees, curricula, facilities, and policies of law enforcement training academies.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: A projected 700 respondents will take an average of 2 hours each to complete form CJ-52, including time to research or find information not readily available. In addition, an estimated 360 of the respondents will be contacted for data quality follow-up by phone at 10 minutes per call.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,460 total burden hours associated with this information collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: July 18, 2018 Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15723 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).

    Announcement Type: New

    Funding Opportunity Number: FOA BS-2018-1

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 17.603

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), is making up to $250,000 available in grant funds for education and training programs to help identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. The focus of these grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 will be training and training materials on powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or mine emergency prevention and preparedness. Applicants for the grants may be States and Territories (to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and private or public nonprofit entities, to include Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, and Native Hawaiian organizations. MSHA could award as many as 5 grants. The amount of each individual grant will be at least $50,000 and the maximum individual award will be $250,000.

    In addition, GSA has implemented new procedures for the System for Award Management (SAM) registration process to prevent fraud. These procedures, as of April 27, 2018, require new entities and entities renewing or updating their registration to submit an original, signed notarized letter confirming the authorized Entity Administrator before the SAM registration will be active. All applicants need an active SAM registration to apply for the grant under this FOA and should plan accordingly because these procedures may increase the time before an applicant may receive an active registration notice.

    This notice contains all of the information needed to apply for grant funding.

    DATES:

    The closing date for applications will be 30 days after date posted (no later than 11:59 p.m. EDST). MSHA will award grants on or before September 28, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Grant applications for this competition must be submitted electronically through the Grants.gov site at www.grants.gov. If applying online poses a hardship to any applicant, the MSHA Directorate of Educational Policy and Development will provide assistance to help applicants submit online.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any questions regarding this FOA BS-2018-1 should be directed to Janice Oates at [email protected] or 202-693-9573 (this is not a toll-free number) or Krystle Mitchell at [email protected] or 202-693-9570 (this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This solicitation provides background information and the requirements for projects funded under the solicitation. This solicitation consists of eight parts:

    • Part I provides background information on the Brookwood-Sago grants.

    • Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.

    • Part III describes the qualifications of an eligible applicant.

    • Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.

    • Part V explains the review process and rating criteria that will be used to evaluate the applications.

    • Part VI provides award administration information.

    • Part VII contains MSHA contact information.

    • Part VIII addresses Freedom of Information Act requests and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) information collection requirements.

    I. Program Description A. Overview of the Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grant Program

    Under Section 14 of the MINER Act, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) is required to establish a competitive grant program called the “Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants” (Brookwood-Sago grants). 30 U.S.C. 965. This program provides funding for education and training programs to better identify, avoid, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines. This program will use grant funds to establish and implement education and training programs or to create training materials and programs. The MINER Act requires the Secretary to give priority to mine safety demonstrations and pilot projects with broad applicability. It also mandates that the Secretary emphasize programs and materials that target miners in smaller mines, including training mine operators and miners on new MSHA standards, high-risk activities, and other identified safety priorities.

    B. Education and Training Program Priorities

    MSHA priorities for the FY 2018 funding of the annual Brookwood-Sago grants will focus on powered haulage safety, examinations of working places at metal and nonmetal mines, or mine emergency prevention and preparedness. MSHA expects Brookwood-Sago grantees to develop training materials or to develop and provide mine safety training or educational programs, recruit mine operators and miners for the training, and conduct and evaluate the training. MSHA will give special emphasis to programs