Federal Register Vol. 83, No.145,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 145 (July 27, 2018)

Page Range35537-36397
FR Document

83_FR_145
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 35681 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
83 FR 35604 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Emergency Management Response SystemPDF
83 FR 35606 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Papayas From PeruPDF
83 FR 35604 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
83 FR 35679 - Secretary's Order 05-2018PDF
83 FR 35680 - Procedures for Appointment of Individuals to Department of Labor Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 35560 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 35582 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 35581 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 35555 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 35566 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund SitePDF
83 FR 35637 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 35635 - Request for Nominations of Experts for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review PanelPDF
83 FR 36370 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries ResearchPDF
83 FR 35666 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee Call for Committee Membership NominationsPDF
83 FR 35682 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective an Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and MIAX PEARL, LLCPDF
83 FR 35623 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 35628 - Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, Washington; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
83 FR 35632 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 35623 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
83 FR 35621 - Procurement List; Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
83 FR 35672 - Notice of Amendments to the Program Comment for the U.S. General Services Administration on Select Envelope and Infrastructure Repairs and Upgrades to Historic Public BuildingsPDF
83 FR 35648 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS)PDF
83 FR 35644 - National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 35644 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC)PDF
83 FR 35608 - Notice of Intent for Renewal of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
83 FR 35612 - Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference; MeetingPDF
83 FR 35605 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Apples From ChinaPDF
83 FR 35664 - Notice To Announce Commission of a Surgeon General's Report on Oral HealthPDF
83 FR 35678 - Filing of Plats of Survey: AlaskaPDF
83 FR 35637 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 35676 - Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Gold Rock Mine Project, White Pine County, NevadaPDF
83 FR 35626 - Privacy Act of 1974; Matching ProgramPDF
83 FR 35645 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 35646 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
83 FR 35702 - Vendor and Grantee Invoice Submission Process ChangePDF
83 FR 35629 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 35679 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
83 FR 35632 - Miller, Paul J.; Notice of FilingPDF
83 FR 35634 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 35627 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 35628 - Hudson Shore Energy Partners LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 35630 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
83 FR 35633 - Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Columbia Gas Transmission, Llc Line 8000 Replacement ProjectPDF
83 FR 35633 - Lorenzo Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
83 FR 35611 - Foreign-Trade Zone 93-Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; Application for Subzone; MAS US Holdings, Inc.; Siler City and Asheboro, North CarolinaPDF
83 FR 35551 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, MSPDF
83 FR 35611 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 35619 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018PDF
83 FR 35620 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 35616 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016PDF
83 FR 35614 - Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 35636 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal)PDF
83 FR 35659 - Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspection, Recall, and Importer Reinspection Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019PDF
83 FR 35551 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, ORPDF
83 FR 35649 - Generic Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019PDF
83 FR 35667 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Radiotherapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate CancerPDF
83 FR 35663 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Radiotherapeutics Against Somatostatin-Receptor Expressing Neuroendocrine TumorsPDF
83 FR 35553 - Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Nitro, WVPDF
83 FR 35674 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Visa Waiver Program Carrier AgreementPDF
83 FR 35641 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
83 FR 35668 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 35668 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice to Close MeetingPDF
83 FR 35665 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Development and Commercialization of Cancer ImmunotherapyPDF
83 FR 35621 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21678PDF
83 FR 35662 - Meeting of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and NutritionPDF
83 FR 35665 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (iCURE) Application (National Cancer Institute)PDF
83 FR 35624 - Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
83 FR 35668 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Collection of Customer Service, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco Use Information From the National Cancer Institute's Contact Center (CC) Clients (NCI)PDF
83 FR 35669 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 35670 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 35681 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 35625 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 35675 - Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection of Information: Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) Flying ArmedPDF
83 FR 35640 - Notice of Certification of State Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) ProgramsPDF
83 FR 35582 - Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint BoardPDF
83 FR 35566 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna FisheriesPDF
83 FR 35654 - ICU Medical, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 31 Abbreviated New Drug ApplicationsPDF
83 FR 35653 - Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases With Substrate Deposition That Results From Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 35624 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 35607 - Notice of New Fee SitesPDF
83 FR 35648 - Determination That Metaxalone Tablets, 640 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
83 FR 35657 - Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 35658 - Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices-Premarket Notification Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 35607 - Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2018, Through June 30, 2019PDF
83 FR 35655 - Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 35550 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NYPDF
83 FR 35641 - Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification RulesPDF
83 FR 35537 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of RecordsPDF
83 FR 35696 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of Fees and Rebates To Adopt Two New Adding Tiers and Regulatory Fees in Connection With Use of the Central Registration DepositoryPDF
83 FR 35699 - Addressing Electrode-Induced Rail Pitting From Pressure Electric WeldingPDF
83 FR 35610 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Census Scientific Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 35610 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations; Extension of Nominations Submission PeriodPDF
83 FR 35541 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Clarendon, TXPDF
83 FR 35626 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for LicensingPDF
83 FR 35630 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G2 1PDF
83 FR 35609 - Broadband e-Connectivity Pilot ProgramPDF
83 FR 35542 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Kansas City, MO; and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Kansas City, MOPDF
83 FR 35570 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OHPDF
83 FR 35540 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ionia, MIPDF
83 FR 35663 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
83 FR 35538 - Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited AirplanesPDF
83 FR 35571 - Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program; Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter SchoolsPDF
83 FR 35602 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management PlanPDF
83 FR 35568 - Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation AirplanesPDF
83 FR 35544 - Freedom of Information Act RegulationsPDF
83 FR 35590 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures; Proposed Amendment 11PDF
83 FR 35704 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Quality Payment Program; and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability ProgramPDF

Issue

83 145 Friday, July 27, 2018 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Exclusive Licenses; Approvals: Methods for Synthesizing Graphene from a Lignin Source, 35604 2018-16135 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

See

Rural Utilities Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Emergency Management Response System, 35604-35605 2018-16213 Importation of Apples from China, 35605-35606 2018-16098 Importation of Papayas from Peru, 35606 2018-16210 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Census Scientific Advisory Committee, 35610-35611 2018-16021 National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, 35610 2018-16020 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35645-35648 2018-16090 2018-16091 Meetings: Advisory Committee to the Director, Health Disparities Subcommittee, 35648 2018-16103 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 35644 2018-16101 National Center for Health Statistics, ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee, 35644-35645 2018-16102 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; etc., 35704-36368 2018-14985 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY, 35550-35551 2018-16026 Willamette River at Portland, OR, 35551 2018-16068 Safety Zones: Kanawha River, Nitro, WV, 35553-35555 2018-16064 Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, MS, 35551-35553 2018-16076 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 35621-35624 2018-16105 2018-16106 2018-16109 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35624-35626 2018-16033 2018-16034 2018-16043 Charter Renewals: Army Education Advisory Committee, 35624 2018-16049
Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program: Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools, 35571-35581 2018-15977 NOTICES Privacy Act; Matching Program, 35626-35627 2018-16092 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site, 35566 2018-16118 Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site, 35555-35560 2018-16119 Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site, 35560-35566 2018-16123 PROPOSED RULES National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site, 35581-35582 2018-16121 Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site, 35582 2018-16122 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NSPS for Portland Cement Plants, 35636-35637 2018-16070 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 35637 2018-16094 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 35637-35640 2018-16117 Requests for Nominations: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel, 35635-35636 2018-16116 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes, 35538-35539 2018-15980 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Revocation of Class E Airspace: Kansas City, MO, 35542-35544 2018-16013 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Ionia, MI, 35540-35541 2018-16010 Revocation of Class E Airspace: Clarendon, TX, 35541-35542 2018-16019 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes, 35568-35570 2018-15964 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Wooster, OH, 35570-35571 2018-16012 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, 35582-35590 2018-16040 NOTICES Certification of State Telecommunications Relay Services Programs, 35640-35641 2018-16041 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35630-35632 2018-16015 Applications: Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, WA, 35628-35629 2018-16108 Combined Filings, 35627-35630, 35634-35635 2018-16081 2018-16082 2018-16084 2018-16085 2018-16088 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Line 8000 Replacement Project, 35633-35634 2018-16080 Filings: Miller, Paul J., 35632 2018-16086 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Hudson Shore Energy Partners LLC, 35628 2018-16083 Lorenzo Wind, LLC, 35633 2018-16078 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 35632-35633 2018-16107 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Addressing Electrode-Induced Rail Pitting from Pressure Electric Welding, 35699-35702 2018-16022 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Notice of Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 35641 2018-16062 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Early Termination of Waiting Period under Premerger Notification Rules, 35641-35644 2018-16025 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Determinations that Products Were Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: Metaxalone Tablets, 640 Milligrams, 35648-35649 2018-16031 Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspection, Recall, and Importer Reinspection Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019, 35659-35662 2018-16069 Generic Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019, 35649-35653 2018-16067 Guidance: Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases, 35655-35657 2018-16027 Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification Submissions, 35658-35659 2018-16029 Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis, 35657-35658 2018-16030 Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases with Substrate Deposition that Results From Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies, 35653-35654 2018-16036 Withdrawal of Approval of Abbreviated New Drug Applications: ICU Medical, Inc., et al., 35654-35655 2018-16037 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, 35607 2018-16028 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Applications: MAS US Holdings, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 93, Raleigh/Durham, NC, 35611 2018-16077 Forest Forest Service NOTICES New Fee Sites, 35607-35608 2018-16032 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, 35662-35663 2018-16056
Historic Historic Preservation, Advisory Council NOTICES Program Comment: General Services Administration on Select Envelope and Infrastructure Repairs and Upgrades to Historic Public Buildings, 35672-35674 2018-16104 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

RULES Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records, 35537-35538 2018-16024
Interior Interior Department See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China, 35614-35616 2018-16071 Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, 35619-35620 2018-16074 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 35616-35619 2018-16072 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 35620-35621 2018-16073 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China, 35611-35612 2018-16075 Meetings: Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference, 35612-35614 2018-16099 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Water Act, 35679 2018-16087 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Orders: Procedures for Appointment of Individuals to Department of Labor Appellate Boards, 35679-35680 2018-16127 Procedures for Appointment of Individuals to Department of Labor Advisory Committees, 35680 2018-16124 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Gold Rock Mine Project, White Pine County, NV, 35676-35678 2018-16093 Plats of Surveys: Alaska, 35678 2018-16095 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation RULES Freedom of Information Act, 35544-35550 2018-15950 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35681 2018-16044 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35608-35609 2018-16100 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Collection of Customer Service, Demographic, and Smoking/Tobacco use Information from the National Cancer Institute's Contact Center Clients, 35668-35669 2018-16048 Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences Application, 35665-35666 2018-16053 Commission of a Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health, 35664 2018-16096 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 35663-35664 2018-16008 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 35668 2018-16060 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 35668 2018-16061 Prospective Grants of Exclusive Patent Licenses: Development and Commercialization of Cancer Immunotherapy, 35665 2018-16058 Radiotherapeutics Against Somatostatin-receptor Expressing Neuroendocrine Tumors, 35663 2018-16065 Radiotherapy for Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer, 35667 2018-16066 Requests for Nominations: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, 35666-35667 2018-16112 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries, 35566-35567 2018-16038 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research, 36370-36397 2018-16115 PROPOSED RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures; Proposed Amendment 11, 35590-35602 2018-15822 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, 35602-35603 2018-15970 NOTICES Permit Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 21678, 35621 2018-16057 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing, 35626 2018-16017 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 35681 2018-16240 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Requests for Comments: Broadband e-Connectivity Pilot Program, 35609 2018-16014 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Amended Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Among the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and MIAX PEARL, LLC, 35682-35696 2018-16110 NYSE National, Inc., 35696-35698 2018-16023 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35669-35672 2018-16045 2018-16046 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 35702 2018-16089
Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Law Enforcement Officers Flying Armed, 35675-35676 2018-16042 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Visa Waiver Program Carrier Agreement, 35674-35675 2018-16063 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 35704-36368 2018-14985 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 36370-36397 2018-16115 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.

83 145 Friday, July 27, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2018-0039] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records AGENCY:

Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of an updated and reissued system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general and privacy-related questions please contact: Philip S. Kaplan, [email protected], (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

DHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (83 FR 19020, May 1, 2018) proposing to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The system of records is the DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records system of records notice (SORN) was published in the Federal Register (83 FR 19078, May 1, 2018) and comments were invited on both the NPRM and SORN.

Public Comments

DHS received no comments on the NPRM and no comments on the SORN. After consideration of the lack of public comments, the Department will implement the rulemaking as proposed.

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

Freedom of information, Privacy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

2. Add paragraph 78 to appendix C to part 5 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

78. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/ALL-039 Foreign Access Management System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. When an investigation has been completed, information on disclosures made may continue to be exempted if the fact that an investigation occurred remains sensitive after completion.

(b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

Philip S. Kaplan, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-16024 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0286; Product Identifier 2018-CE-008-AD; Amendment 39-19340; AD 2018-15-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as airplane sound insulation materials attached to the aft face of the firewall not complying with the applicable burn testing criteria for materials on the cabin side of the firewall. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 31, 2018.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0286; or in person at 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email: [email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2018-0286.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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 Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2018 (83 FR 15517). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

The sound insulation material on the aft face of the firewall must comply with the applicable burn test criteria specified in FAR [14 CFR] 23.853(f). [As of August 30, 2017, § 23.853 was replaced by § 23.2325 (81 FR 96572, December 30, 2016).]

Inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if sound insulation material is installed per the instructions in Pacific Aerospace Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) PACSB/XL/095 issue 1, dated 21 December 2017, or later approved revision.

If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall, then remove the material per the instructions in MSB PACSB/XL/095 before further flight.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2018-0286-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the airplane sound insulation attached to the aft face of the firewall and removal if necessary. 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 will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 8 work-hours, for a cost of $680 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation 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 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.

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-2018-0286; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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): 2018-15-08 Pacific Aerospace Limited: Amendment 39-19340; Docket No. FAA-2018-0286; Product Identifier 2018-CE-008-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 31, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Model 750XL airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including 215, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 54: Nacelles/Pylons.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as airplane sound insulation materials attached to the aft face of the firewall not complying with the applicable burn testing criteria for materials on the cabin side of the firewall. We are issuing this AD to prevent the spread of fire into the cabin in case of an engine fire.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD:

(1) Within 90 days after August 31, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the aft face of the firewall and determine if the sound insulation material is installed per the Inspection Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.

(2) If a layer of black foam insulating material is found covering the firewall during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, remove the material per the Accomplishment Instructions in Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(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, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA).

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI CAA AD DCA/750XL/27A, dated March 1, 2018, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2018-0286-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference 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) Pacific Aerospace Service Bulletin PACSB/XL/095, Issue 1, dated December 21, 2017.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Pacific Aerospace Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Pacific Aerospace Limited, Airport Road, Hamilton, Private Bag 3027, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand; phone: +64 7843 6144; fax: +64 843 6134; email: [email protected]; internet: www.aerospace.co.nz.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0286.

(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 Kansas City, Missouri, on July 20, 2018. Pat Mullen, Aircraft Certification Service, Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2018-15980 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0291; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-10] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ionia, MI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI. This action as the result of an airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Lansing VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI, to support instrument flight rule operations.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 18763; April 30, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0291 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius (decreased from a 7.4-mile radius) at Ionia County Airport, Ionia, MI. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Lansing VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Ionia, MI [Amended] Ionia County Airport, MI (Lat. 42°56′17″ N, long. 85°03′38″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Ionia County Airport.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 19, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-16010 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0310; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-7] RIN 2120-AA66 Revocation of Class E Airspace; Clarendon, TX AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX. This action is due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the airport making this airspace no longer necessary.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it supports the removal of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX.

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 18765; April 30, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0310 to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon, TX.

This action due to the cancellation of the instrument procedures at the airport making the airspace no longer necessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW TX E5 Clarendon, TX [Removed] Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-16019 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1083; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Kansas City, MO; and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Kansas City, MO AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, Kansas City, MO; removes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO, and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. The VOR has been decommissioned as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. Additionally, the geographic coordinates and airport name are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at these airports.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 FR 4611; February 1, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1083 to modify Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, Kansas City, MO; remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, MO, and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). In their comment, AOPA stated that the NPRM did not comply with FAA guidance in FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, because a graphic was not included in the docket. Additionally, AOPA encouraged the FAA to follow their guidance in the Order by making the action effective date coincidental to the sectional chart publication date.

The FAA has determined AOPA's comments raised no substantive issues with respect to the proposed changes to the airspace addressed in the NPRM. To the extent the FAA failed to follow its policy guidance reference publishing graphics in the docket and establishing the Class D airspace effective date to match the sectional chart date, we note the following.

With respect to AOPA's comment addressing graphics, FAA Order 7400.2L, paragraph 2-3-3.c. requires the official docket to include available graphics. For this airspace action, no graphics were deemed necessary or produced in the review or development of the proposed airspace amendments noted in the NPRM; therefore, no graphics were available to include in the docket.

Specific to AOPA's comment regarding the FAA already creating a graphical depiction of new or modified airspace overlaid on a Sectional Chart for quality assurance purposes, this is not correct nor required in all cases. During the airspace reviews, airspace graphics may be created, if deemed necessary, to determine if there are any terrain issues, or if cases are considered complex. However, in many cases when developing an airspace amendment proposal, a graphic is not required. It was unclear if the graphic AOPA argued was already created with a sectional chart background was actually the airspace graphic created by the Aeronautical Informational Services office in preparation of publishing the sectional charts. However, that graphic is normally created after the rulemaking determination is published.

With respect to AOPA's comment addressing effective dates, FAA Order 7400.2L, paragraph 2-3-7.a.4. states that, to the extent practicable, Class D airspace area and restricted area rules should become effective on a sectional chart date and that consideration should be given to selecting a sectional chart date that matches a 56-day en route chart cycle date. The FAA does consider publishing Class D airspace amendment effective dates to coincide with the publication of sectional charts, to the extent practicable; however, this consideration is accomplished after the NPRM comment period ends in the final rule. Substantive comments received to NPRMs, flight safety concerns, management of IFR operations at affected airports, and immediacy of required proposed airspace amendments are some of the factors that must be taken into consideration when selecting the appropriate effective date. After considering all factors, the FAA may determine that selecting an effective date that conforms to a 56-day en route chart cycle date that is not coincidental to sectional chart dates is better for the National Airspace System and its users than awaiting the next sectional chart date.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71:

Amends the Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport by updating the header of the airspace legal description to Kansas City, MO, (from Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, MO) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 012° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles from the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 013° bearing from the airport from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles north of the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles northeast of the airport; adds an extension 1.0 mile each side of the 218° bearing from the airport from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.0 miles south of the airport; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

Removes the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport as the airspace is no longer required; and

Amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kansas City, MO, by updating the header of the airspace legal description to Kansas City, MO, (from Kansas City International Airport, MO) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L; updates the name and geographic coordinates of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport (formerly Kansas City Downtown Airport) and the geographic coordinates of Sherman Army Airfield (AAF), KS, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removes the Kansas City VORTAC, DOTTE LOM, Riverside VOR/DME ILS RWY 19R localizer, ILS RWY 19 localizer, ILS RWY 1L localizer, and ILS RWY 1R localizer from the airspace description; removes all current extensions at Kansas City International Airport and Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and adds an extension 2.0 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Riverside VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and for the safety and management of IFR operations at these airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ACE MO D Kansas City, MO [Amended] Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, MO (Lat. 39°07′23″ N, long. 94°35′34″ W) Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC (Lat. 39°06′50″ N, long. 94°35′44″ W) Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC (Lat. 39°07′40″ N, long. 94°35′17″ W)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, excluding that airspace within the Kansas City, MO Class B airspace area; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 012° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 19 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.4 miles north of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 013° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles north of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.5 miles south of the airport; and within 1.0 mile each side of the 218° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 5.0 miles south of the airport.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ACE MO E4 Kansas City Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, MO [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE MO E5 Kansas City, MO [Amended] Kansas City International Airport, MO (Lat. 39°17′51″ N, long. 94°42′50″ W) Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport, MO (Lat. 39°07′23″ N, long. 94°35′34″ W) Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC (Lat. 39°07′40″ N, long. 94°35′17″ W) Sherman Army Airfield (AAF), KS (Lat. 39°22′03″ N, long. 94°54′52″ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Kansas City International Airport; and within a 6.7-mile radius of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within 2.0 miles each side of the 215° bearing from the Charles B. Wheeler Downtown RWY 03 LOC, extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Charles B. Wheeler Downtown Airport; and within a 6.5-mile radius of Sherman AAF.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-16013 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION 22 CFR Part 1304 Freedom of Information Act Regulations AGENCY:

Millennium Challenge Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Agency's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The regulation has been revised to update and implement the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act as required under that statute. This document will assist interested parties in obtaining access to Millennium Challenge Corporation public records.

DATES:

This rule is effective July 27, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tamiko N.W. Watkins, Chief FOIA Officer, 202-521-3730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Millennium Challenge Act (MCA) of 2003 established a new federal agency called the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966 and last modified it with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. This rule addresses electronically available documents, procedures for making requests, agency handling of requests, records not disclosed, changes in fees, and public reading rooms, as well as, other related provisions.

Discussion of Final Rule and Response to Comments and Other Changes From Proposed Rule

MCC reviewed all public comments and made the necessary revisions in order to ensure that this rule complies with the Freedom of Information Act and FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. These revisions include updating definitions to reflect the definitions identified in the Department of Justice Template for Agency FOIA Regulations.

Lists of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 1304

Freedom of Information Act procedures.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Millennium Challenge Corporation amends chapter XIII of title 22 by revising part 1304 to read as follows: PART 1304—PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION Subpart A—Procedures for Requests for Disclosure of Records Under the Freedom of Information Act Sec. 1304.1 General provisions. 1304.2 Definitions. 1304.3 Proactive disclosure of MCC records. 1304.4 Requirements for making requests. 1304.5 Responsibility for acknowledgment and initial determinations. 1304.6 Timing of responses to requests. 1304.7 Responses to requests. 1304.8 Confidential commercial information. 1304.9 Administrative appeals. 1304.10 Preservation of records. 1304.11 Fees. 1304.12 Other rights and services. Subpart B—[Reserved] Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.

§ 1304.1 General provisions.

This part contains the rules that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (“MCC”) follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) (5 U.S.C. 552). The rules in this part should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Fee Guidelines”). In addition, the MCC FOIA web page contains information about the specific procedures particular to MCC with respect to making FOIA requests. This resource is available at www.mcc.gov/resources/foia.

§ 1304.2 Definitions.

Administrative appeal. An independent review of the initial determination made in response to a FOIA request.

Agency. Any executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Federal Government or any independent regulatory agency.

Business day or work day. A day of the week, excluding Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holidays.

Calendar days. Every day within a month, including Saturday, Sunday, and legal public holidays. Unless identified as a “business day” or “work day,” all timeframes and days noted in this part shall be calculated in calendar days.

Chief FOIA Officer. A designated MCC employee who is a senior official, at the Assistant Secretary or equivalent level who, subject to the authority of the head of the agency, shall have agency wide responsibility for efficient and appropriate compliance with the FOIA. In addition, the Chief FOIA Officer shall monitor implementation of the FOIA throughout MCC and keep the head of the agency, the chief legal officer of the agency, and the Attorney General appropriately informed of the agency's performance in implementing the FOIA; recommend to the head of the agency such adjustments to MCC's practices, policies, personnel, and funding as may be necessary to improve its implementation of the FOIA; facilitate public understanding of the purposes of the statutory exemptions of the FOIA; offer training to MCC staff regarding their responsibilities under the FOIA, serve as the primary agency liaison with the Office of Government Information Services and the Office of Information policy; and designate one (1) or more FOIA Public Liaisons. The Chief FOIA Officer shall review, not less frequently than annually, all aspects of the administration of the FOIA by MCC to ensure compliance with the requirements of the FOIA, including—agency regulations; disclosure of records; assessment of fees and determination of eligibility for fee waivers; timely processing of requests for information; the use of exemptions; and dispute resolution services with the assistance of the Office of Government Information Services or the FOIA Public Liaison.

Commercial requester. Any person making a request for information for a use or purpose that furthers a commercial, trade, or profit interest, which can include furthering those interests through litigation.

Complex request. A FOIA request that MCC anticipates will involve a voluminous amount of material to review or will be time-consuming to process.

Confidential commercial information. Records provided to the government that contain material exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA and disclosure of such records could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm.

Consultation. When MCC locates a record that contains information of interest to another agency, MCC shall ask the interested agency for their views on disclosing the records before any final determination is made.

Direct costs. Expenditures actually incurred by MCC for searching, duplicating, and in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing records in order to respond to a FOIA request.

Discretionary disclosure. The release of or portions of records to a FOIA requester that could be withheld by MCC under one or more of the FOIA exemptions.

Duplication. The process of making a copy of a record in order to respond to a FOIA request, including but not limited to paper copies, microfilm, audio-video materials, and computer diskettes or other electronic copies.

Duplication fees. The estimated direct costs of making a copy of a record in order to respond to a FOIA request.

Educational institution. Any school or institution that operates a program of scholarly research. A requester in this category must show that the request is made in connection with his or her role at the educational institution.

Educational requester. A student who makes a request in furtherance of their coursework or other school-sponsored activities and provides a copy of a course syllabus or other reasonable documentation to indicate the research purpose for the request, would qualify as part of this fee category.

Exemptions. Certain categories of information that are not required to be released in response to a FOIA request because release would be harmful to governmental or private interests.

Fee waiver. The waiver or reduction of processing fees if a requester can demonstrate that certain statutory standards are satisfied including that the information is in the public interest and is not requested for a commercial interest.

FOIA Appeals Officer. The MCC employee who is responsible for conducting an independent review of the initial determination of the FOIA request after the requester has requested an administrative appeal.

FOIA Public Liaison. The MCC employee who is responsible for assisting in the resolution of disputes in response to FOIA requests.

FOIA Program Officer. The MCC employee who receives and processes requests within the MCC FOIA Office.

Non-commercial scientific institution. An institution that does not operate on a commercial basis, but operates solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research and the results of the scientific research are not intended to promote any particular product or industry.

Record. Any item, collection, or grouping of information maintained by MCC in any form or format, including an electronic copy. A “record” can potentially constitute an entire document, a single page of a multipage document, an individual paragraph of a document, or an email within an email chain.

Referral. When an agency locates a record that originated with, or is of otherwise primary interest to another agency, it will forward that record to the other agency to process the record and to provide the final determination directly to the requester.

Representative of the news media. Any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast “news” to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate “news” and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the internet. A request for records supporting the news-dissemination function of the requester will not be considered to be for a commercial use. “Freelance” journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity will be considered as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, agencies can also consider a requester's past publication record in making this determination.

Review. The process of examining a record to determine whether all or part of the record may be released or withheld, and includes redacting or otherwise processing the record for disclosure to a requester. The review process does not include time spent resolving legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions to a record. The review process also does not include time spent reviewing records at the administrative appeal level unless, MCC determines that the exemption under which it withheld records does not apply and the records are reviewed again to determine whether a different exemption may apply.

Requester category. One of the three categories that agencies place requesters in for the purpose of determining whether a requester will be charged fees for search, review and duplication, including commercial requesters; non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and all other requesters.

Search. The time spent locating records that may be responsive to a request, manually or by electronic means, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of responsive material within a record.

Search fees. Estimated direct costs of the time spent locating records by either manual or electronic means.

Submitter. Any person or entity who provides information directly or indirectly to MCC. The term includes, but is not limited to, corporations, state governments, and foreign governments.

§ 1304.3 Proactive disclosure of MCC records.

Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format may be accessed through the MCC website. MCC is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available, identifying additional records in the interest of the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and posting such records. MCC shall ensure that its website of posted records is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. The FOIA Program Officer may assist individuals in locating records on the MCC website and FOIA reading room.

§ 1304.4 Requirements for making requests.

(a) Requests for access to, or copies of, MCC records other than those identified in § 1304.3, shall be in writing and addressed to the MCC Chief FOIA Officer at 1099 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005 or [email protected]. All requests for records shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to the FOIA, regardless of whether the request specifically mentions the Freedom of Information Act. To facilitate processing, the requester should place the phrase “FOIA REQUEST” in capital letters on the front of the envelope or subject line of the email.

(b) Each request shall include the following:

(1) A description of the record(s) that provides sufficient detail to enable MCC to locate the record(s) with a reasonable amount of effort; such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number. Before submitting their requests, requesters may contact the MCC FOIA Program Officer to discuss the records the are seeking and receive assistance in describing the records;

(2) The preferred format of the records;

(3) The requestor's full name, mailing address or email address, and telephone number where the requester can be reached during business hours; and

(4) If applicable, the maximum amount the requester is willing to pay or dollar limit on the fees MCC may incur to respond to the request for records. When this information is specified, MCC shall not exceed such limit.

(c) If a request does not meet all of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the FOIA Program Officer may advise the requester that additional information is needed. Requesters who are attempting to reformulate or modify a request may engage with the MCC Program Officer to clarify their request.

§ 1304.5 Responsibility for acknowledgment and initial determinations.

(a) Upon receipt of a request for records, the FOIA Program Officer will acknowledge receipt of the request in writing within ten (10) business days. In responding to a request for records, MCC shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system.

(b) The Chief FOIA Officer shall make an initial determination, within twenty (20) business days, to either grant or deny, in whole or in part, a request for records. If the Chief FOIA Officer shall notify the requester making such a request of the following information:

(1) The determination whether grant or deny the request and reasons for the determination;

(2) The right of the requester to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison; and in the case of an adverse determination;

(3) The right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services via the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS); and

(4) The right to file an administrative appeal to the FOIA Appeals Officer within 90 calendar days after the date of the adverse determination.

§ 1304.6 Timing of responses to requests.

(a) General information. The twenty (20) business day period identified in § 1304.5(b) shall commence on the date that the request is first received by the MCC FOIA office and an acknowledgment of the request shall be sent no later than ten (10) business days after receipt of the request. The twenty (20) business day period shall not be tolled except that MCC may make one request to the requester for information and toll the twenty (20) business day period while it is awaiting receipt of the information, or the twenty (20) business day period may be tolled if it is necessary to clarify issues regarding fees with the requester.

(b) Unusual circumstances. If MCC cannot meet the statutory time limit for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances” as defined in the FOIA and MCC extends the time limit on that basis, MCC will, before expiration of the twenty (20) business day period, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances involved and of the date by which MCC estimates processing of the request will be completed. Where the extension exceeds ten (10) business days, MCC will provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request. MCC must make its designated FOIA Program Officer or FOIA Public Liaison available for this purpose. To aid the requester, the MCC FOIA Public Liaison shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and MCC, and notify the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.

(c) Aggregating requests. MCC may aggregate requests where it reasonably appears that multiple requests, submitted either by a requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances. Requests that involve unrelated matters shall not be aggregated.

(d) Multitrack processing. MCC may use multitrack processing in responding to requests. This process entails separating simple requests that require rather limited review from more lengthy and complex requests. Requests in each track are then processed in their respective track. The FOIA Program Officer may provide requesters in the slower track an opportunity to limit the scope of their requests in order to decrease the processing time required. The FOIA Program Officer may provide the opportunity to limit the scope of the request by contacting the requester by letter, email, or telephone.

(e) Expedited processing of requests. The FOIA Program Officer must determine whether to grant a request for expedited processing within ten (10) calendar days of its receipt. Requests will receive expedited processing if one of the following criteria are met:

(1) The requester can establish that failure to receive the records quickly could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;

(2) The requester is primarily engaged in disseminating information and can demonstrate that an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity exists; or

(3) As determined by the Chief FOIA Officer.

(f) Written expedited requests. A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a written statement explaining in detail the basis for making the request for expedited processing. This statement must be certified to be true and correct. The MCC Chief FOIA Officer may waive the formal certification requirement.

§ 1304.7 Responses to requests.

(a) General information. MCC, to the extent practicable, will communicate with requesters who have access to the internet via email or web portal.

(b) Acknowledgment of requests. MCC shall acknowledge the request in writing and assign a tracking number for processing purposes.

(c) Estimated dates of completion and interim responses. Upon request, MCC shall provide an estimated response date. If a request involves a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations, MCC shall provide interim responses by releasing the records on a rolling basis.

(d) Granting requests. MCC will notify the requestor in writing if it determines that it will grant a request in full or in part. MCC shall inform the requester of any fees charged and shall disclose the requested records to the requester promptly upon payment of any applicable fees.

(e) Partial grant of requests. MCC shall consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever the agency determines that a full disclosure of a requested record is not possible. MCC shall take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.

(f) Denial or adverse determination of requests. Except as otherwise provided in this part, MCC shall withhold information only if—

(1) It reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption under the FOIA or disclosure is prohibited by law;

(2) The request does not reasonably describe the records sought;

(3) The information sought is not a record subject to the FOIA;

(4) The information sought does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or

(5) The records are not in the readily producible form or format sought by the requester.

(g) Markings on released documents. Records disclosed in part shall be marked clearly to show the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion was made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.

§ 1304.8 Confidential commercial information.

(a) Designation of confidential commercial information. A submitter of confidential commercial information must use good faith efforts to designate by appropriate markings, either at the time of the submission or within a reasonable time thereafter, any portion of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA. These designations shall expire ten (10) years after the date of submission unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.

(b) Required notice. Written notice shall be provided to a submitter of confidential commercial information whenever records containing such information are requested under the FOIA if, after reviewing the request, the responsive records, and any appeal by the requester, it is determined that MCC may be required to disclose the records, provided:

(1) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA; or

(2) MCC has reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.

(c) Information. The notices shall either describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, notice may be made by posting or publishing the notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to accomplish it.

(d) Exceptions to notice requirements. The notices requirements of this section shall not apply if:

(1) The Chief FOIA Officer determines that the information is exempt under the FOIA;

(2) The information has been lawfully published or has officially been made available to the public;

(3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987; or

(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the component shall give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information and must provide that notice within a reasonable number of days prior to the disclosure date.

(e) Opportunity to object to disclosure. A submitter may provide the Chief FOIA Officer with a detailed written statement of any objection to disclosure within ten (10) days of notification. The statement shall specify all grounds for withholding any of the information under any exemption of the FOIA, and if Exemption 4 applies, shall demonstrate the reasons the submitter believes the information to be confidential commercial information that is exempt from disclosure. Whenever possible, the submitter's claim of confidentiality shall be supported by a statement or certification by an officer or authorized representative of the submitter. In the event a submitter fails to respond to the notice in the time specified, the submitter will be considered to have no objection to the disclosure of the information. Information provided by the submitter that is received after the disclosure decision has been made will not be considered. Information provided by a submitter pursuant to this paragraph may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

(f) Notice of intent to disclose. The Chief FOIA Officer shall consider a submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure prior to determining whether to disclose the information requested. Whenever the Chief FOIA Officer determines that disclosure is appropriate, the Chief FOIA Officer shall, within a reasonable number of days prior to disclosure, provide the submitter with written notice of the intent to disclose which shall include a statement of the reasons for which the submitter's objections were overruled, a description of the information to be disclosed, and a specific disclosure date. The Chief FOIA Officer shall also notify the requester that the requested records will be made available.

(g) Notice of lawsuit. If the requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel disclosure of confidential commercial information, MCC shall promptly notify the submitter of this action. If a submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent disclosure of confidential commercial information, MCC shall promptly notify the requester.

§ 1304.9 Administrative appeals.

(a) Requirements for appealing an adverse determination. A requester may appeal any adverse determination to MCC. The requester must submit a written notice of appeal and it must be postmarked or, in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted within ninety (90) calendar days after the date of the response. The appeal should clearly identify the determination that is being appealed and the assigned tracking number. To facilitate handling, the requester should mark both the appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”

(b) Appeals address. Requesters can submit appeals by mail by addressing it to Millennium Challenge Corporation, Attn.: FOIA Appeals Officer, 1099 14th St. NW, Washington, DC 20005 or online at [email protected].

(c) Adjudication of appeals. The MCC FOIA Appeals Officer will adjudicate the appeal within twenty (20) business days after the receipt of such appeal. An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of the subject of litigation. On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the MCC FOIA Appeals Officer must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.

(d) Final agency determinations. The FOIA Appeals Officer shall issue a final written determination, stating the basis for the decision, within twenty (20) business days after receipt of a notice of appeal. Any decision that upholds MCC's determination in whole or in part must contain a statement that identifies the reason(s) for the decision, including any FOIA exemptions applied. The decision will provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the OGIS of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the Chief FOIA Officer's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the FOIA Appeals Officer will notify the requester of the determination in writing. MCC will then further process the request in accordance with the appeal determination and will respond directly to the requester.

(e) Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by OGIS. Dispute resolution is a voluntary process. If MCC agrees to participate in the dispute resolution services provided by OGIS, MCC will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

(f) When an appeal is required. Before seeking review by a court of MCC's adverse determination, a requester generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal.

§ 1304.10 Preservation of records.

MCC shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to Title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 4.2 of the National Archives and Records Administration. MCC shall not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

§ 1304.11 Fees.

(a) General information. (1) MCC's fee provisions are governed by the FOIA and by the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform FOIA Fee Schedule and Guidelines. For purposes of assessing fees, the FOIA establishes the following categories of requesters:

(i) Commercial use;

(ii) Non-commercial scientific or educational institutions;

(iii) Representative of the news media; and

(iv) All other requesters.

(2) Fees will be assessed pursuant to the category of requester and detailed in paragraph (b) of this section. Requesters may seek a fee waiver. To resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, MCC may contact a requester for additional information. MCC will ensure that searches, review, and duplication are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner. MCC ordinarily will collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to a requester. Requesters must pay fees to the Treasury of the United States. All fee information is available at www.mcc.gov/resources/foia.

(b) Charging fees. Because the fee amounts provided already account for the direct costs associated with the given fee type, MCC will not add any additional costs to charges calculated under this section. In responding to FOIA requests, MCC shall charge fees for the following unless a waiver or reduction of fees has been granted:

(1) Search time fees. Search time includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and the reasonable efforts expended to locate and retrieve information from electronic records.

(i) Requests made by education institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media are not subject to search time fees. Search time fees shall be charged for all other requesters, subject to the restrictions identified in this section. MCC may properly charge for time spent searching even if no responsive records are located if it is determined that the records are entirely exempt from disclosure.

(ii) Requesters shall be charged the direct costs associated with conducting any searches that require the creation of a new computer program to locate the requested records. Requesters shall be notified of the costs associated with creating such a program and must agree to pay the associated costs before the costs may be incurred.

(iii) For requests that require the retrieval of records stored by an agency at the Federal Records Centers operated by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), additional costs shall be charged in accordance with the Transactional Billing Range Schedule established by NARA.

(2) Duplication fees. Duplication fees shall be charged to all requesters, subject to the restrictions in this section. MCC shall honor a requester's preference for receiving a record in a particular form or format where it is readily reproducible by MCC in the form or format requested. Where photocopies are supplied, MCC shall provide one copy per request and charge fees calculated per page. For copies of records produced on tapes, disks, or other media, MCC shall charge the direct costs of producing the copy, including operator time. Where paper documents must be scanned in order to comply with a requester's preference to receive the records in an electronic format, the requester shall be charged direct costs associated with scanning those materials. For other forms of duplication, MCC shall charge the direct costs.

(3) Review. Review fees shall be charged to requesters who make commercial use requests. Review fees shall be assessed in connection with the initial review of the record. No charge will be made for review at the administrative appeal state of exemptions applied at the initial review stage. If a particular exemption is deemed to no longer apply, any costs associated with MCC's subsequent review following the administrative appeal of the records in order to consider the use of other exemptions may be assessed as review fees.

(c) Restrictions on charging fees. The following restrictions shall apply to MCC FOIA requests:

(1) If MCC fails to comply with the FOIA's time limits to respond to a request, MCC may not charge fees, except as described in paragraphs (c)(3) through (5) of this section;

(2) If MCC has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply and the agency provided timely written notice to the requester in accordance with the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limit shall be excused for an additional ten (10) calendar days;

(3) If MCC has determined that unusual circumstances as defined by the FOIA apply, and more than five-thousand (5,000) pages are necessary to respond to the request, MCC may charge search time fees or duplication fees where applicable, if MCC has provided timely written notice of the unusual circumstances to the requester in accordance with the FOIA and has discussed with the requester via written mail, email, or telephone (or made a minimum of three (3) good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request;

(4) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist as defined by the FOIA, a failure to comply with the time limits shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order; and

(5) No search time or review fees will be charged for a quarter-hour period unless more than half of that period is required for search or review.

(d) Fee exceptions. Except for requesters seeking records for commercial use, MCC shall provide without charge:

(1) The first one-hundred (100) pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media); and

(2) The first two (2) hours of search time. When, after deducting the first one-hundred (100) free pages (or its cost equivalent) and the first two (2) hours of search time, a total fee calculated under this section is $25.00 or less for any request, no fee will be charged.

(e) Notice of anticipated fees in excess of $25.00. (1) When MCC determines that the fees to be assessed will exceed $25.00, the requester shall be notified of the actual or estimated amount of the fees, including the breakdown of the fees for search time, review or duplication, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. If only a portion of the fee can be estimated readily, MCC shall advise the requester accordingly. If the requester is not a commercial use requester, the notice shall specify that the requester is entitled to the statutory requirements of one-hundred (100) pages of duplication at no charge and, if the requester is charged search time fees, two (2) hours of search time at no charge, and shall advise the requester whether those entitlements have been provided.

(2) In cases in which a requester has been notified that the actual or estimated fees are in excess of $25.00, the request shall not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the requester commits, in writing, to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designates some amount of fees the requester is willing to pay, or in the case of a requester who is not a commercial use requester who has not yet been provided with the requester's statutory entitlements, designates that the requester seeks only that which can be provided by the statutory entitlements. The requester must provide the commitment or designation in writing, and must, when applicable designate an exact dollar amount the requester is willing to pay. MCC is not required to accept payments in installments.

(3) If the requester has indicated a willingness to pay some designated amount of fees, and MCC estimates that the total fee will exceed that amount, MCC shall toll the processing of the request when it notifies the requester of the estimated fees in excess of the amount the requester has indicated a willingness to pay. MCC shall inquire whether the requester wishes to revise the amount of fees the requester is willing to pay or modify the request. Once the requester responds, the time to respond will resume from where it was at the date of the notification.

(4) The FOIA Program Officer will assist any requester in reformulating a request to meet the requester's needs at a lower cost.

(f) Waiver or reduction of fees. Documents shall be furnished without charge or at a charge below that listed in this section based upon information provided by a requester or otherwise made known to the Chief FOIA Officer that disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest. Disclosure is in the public interest if it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations and is not primarily for commercial purposes. Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees shall be considered on a case by case basis. Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for waiver of fees, a waiver shall be granted to those records. In order to determine whether the fee waiver requirement is met, the Chief FOIA Officer shall consider the following factors:

(1) The subject of the request. Whether the subject of the requested records concerns the operations or activities of the government;

(2) The informative value of the information to be disclosed; and

(3) The significance of the contribution to public understanding.

(g) Fees pending a waiver request. Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the agency and should address the criteria referenced in this section. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester must pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.

(h) Types of requesters. There are four categories of FOIA requesters: Commercial use requesters, educational and non-commercial scientific institutional requesters; representatives of the news media; and all other requesters. The following specific levels of fees are prescribed for each of these categories:

(1) Commercial requesters shall be charged the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating requested records;

(2) Educational and non-commercial scientific institution requesters shall be charged for document duplication only and the first one-hundred (100) pages of paper copies shall be provided without charge;

(3) Representative of the news media requesters shall be charged for document duplication costs only, except that the first one-hundred (100) pages of paper copies shall be provided without charge; and

(4) All other requesters who do not fall into any of the categories in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section shall be charged fees which recover the full reasonable direct costs incurred for searching for and reproducing records if that total costs exceeds $25.00, except that the first one-hundred (100) pages of duplication and the first two hours of manual search time shall not be charged.

(i) Charges for unsuccessful searches. If the requester has been notified of the estimated cost of the search time and has been advised specifically that the requested records may not exist or may be withheld as exempt, fees may be charged.

(j) Charges for other services. Although MCC is not required to provide special services, if it chooses to do so as a matter of administrative discretion, the direct costs of providing the service shall be charged. Examples of such services include certifying that records are true copies, providing multiple copies of the same document, or sending records by means other than first class mail.

(k) Charging interest. MCC may charge interest on any unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the date of billing the requester. Interest charges shall be assessed at the rate provided in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the billing date until payment is received. MCC shall follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset.

(l) Aggregating requests. The requester or a group of requesters may not submit multiple requests at the same time, each seeking portions of a document or documents solely in order to avoid payment of fees. When the FOIA Program Officer reasonably believes that a requester is attempting to divide a request into a series of requests to evade an assessment of fees, the FOIA Program Officer may aggregate such requests and charge accordingly. MCC may presume that multiple requests of this type made within a thirty (30) calendar day period have been made in order to avoid fees. For requests separated by a longer period, MCC will aggregate them only where there is a reasonable basis for determining that aggregation is warranted in view of all the circumstances involved. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters cannot be aggregated.

(m) Advance payment of fees. (1) MCC may require an advanced payment of fees if the requestor previously failed to pay fees or if the FOIA Program Officer determines the total fee will exceed $250.00. When payment is required in advance of the processing of a request, the time limits prescribed in § 1304.5 shall not be deemed to begin until the requester has paid the assessed fees.

(2) In cases in which MCC requires advance payment, the request will not be considered received and further work will not be completed until the required payment is received. If the requester does not pay the advance payment within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of the fee determination, the request will be closed. Where it is anticipated that the cost of providing the requested record will exceed $25.00 but falls below $250.00 after the free duplication and search time has been calculated, MCC may, in its discretion may require either an advance deposit of the entire estimated charges or written confirmation of the requester's willingness to pay such charges.

(3) Where the requester has previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee within thirty (30) calendar days of the billing date, MCC may require the requester to pay the full amount due plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and/or require that the requester make an advance payment of the full amount of the anticipated fee before MCC begins a new request or continues to process a pending request or any pending appeal. If MCC has a reasonable basis to believe that a requester has misrepresented the requester's identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, MCC may require that the requester provide proof of identity.

§ 1304.12 Other rights and services.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person a right to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the FOIA.

Dated: July 17, 2018. Tamiko N.W. Watkins, Chief FOIA Officer, Millennium Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018-15950 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9211-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0660] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. The deviation is necessary to complete rehabilitation work on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge owner to require two hours advance notice before opening the bridge.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 30, 2018, to 4 p.m. on November 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0660 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4336, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The owner of the bridge, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule in order to complete rehabilitation work associated with the replacement of lift span machinery. The Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) Bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0 at Queens, New York has a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.795(a).

The temporary deviation will allow the owner of the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) bridge to require vessels seeking an opening of the draw to provide a minimum of two hours of advance notice on weekdays (Monday through Friday) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. from July 30, 2018 to November 30, 2018 by submitting a request for the opening of the draw. Requiring a minimum of two hours of advance notice before opening the draw allows for sufficient time to alert all affected personnel engaged in bridge rehabilitation work to vacate the lift span and all machinery areas along, with removing and/or securing materials and equipment prior to lifting the bridge.

The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit under the bridge in the closed position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

Dated: July 23, 2018. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-16026 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0701] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River at Portland, OR AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs two Multnomah County bridges: Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1 crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Providence Bridge Pedal event. The deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0701 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Multnomah County, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Morrison Bridge, mile 12.8, and Hawthorne Bridge, mile 13.1, both crossing the Willamette River at Portland, OR. The requested deviation will accommodate the Providence Bridge Pedal event, an annual cycling and walking event across several Willamette River crossings. The vertical clearances for theses bridges in the closed-to-navigation position are 69 feet for the Morrison Bridge and 49 feet for the Hawthorne Bridge respectively, as measured against the vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. The normal operating schedule for the subject bridges is 33 CFR 117.897. This deviation allows the Morrison Bridge and Hawthorne Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on August 12, 2018.

Waterway usage on this part of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the subject bridges in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard has conducted public outreach regarding this temporary deviation to known mariners that transit this part of the river. The Coast Guard has not received any objections to this temporary deviation from the operating schedule. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway, through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, of the change in operating schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: July 23, 2018. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-16068 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0708] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, MS AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River upriver of the Bienville Trace Scenic Byway/US-425 Bridge in Natchez, MS. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment during a fireworks display. Entry of persons or vessels into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0708 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Waterways Management, Sector Lower Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-4813, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River 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 final 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone by July 27, 2018, and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the event and compromise public safety.

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 public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect persons and property from the potential hazards associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display located at mile marker (MM) 365.0 on the Lower Mississippi River and scheduled for 9:30 p.m. on July 27, 2018, would be a safety concern for all persons and vessels on the Lower Mississippi River between MM 364.5 and MM 365.5 from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018. Hazards associated with the firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 364.5 to MM 365.5, upriver of the Bienville Trace Scenic Byway/US-425 Bridge, in Natchez, MS. The duration of this safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.

Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River. Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, 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 will be prohibited from entering this safety zone, which will impact a one-mile stretch of lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety 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 temporary 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 will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T08-0708 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0708 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, LA.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 364.5 to mile marker 365.5, upriver of the Bienville Trace Scenic Byway/US-425 Bridge, Natchez, MS.

(b) Effective date. This section is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 27, 2018.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Lower Mississippi River.

(2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 901-521-4822.

(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

Dated: July 20, 2018. R. Tamez, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lower Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2018-16076 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0686] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Nitro, WV AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker 43.1 to mile marker 44.2. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with the Riverfest fireworks display. Entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 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-2018-0686 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 Petty Officer Caitlin Furman, Marine Safety Unit Huntington, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 304-733-0198, email caitlin.c.furman[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 4, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the event and compromise public safety.

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 public interest because immediate action is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with the fireworks display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display taking place over this section of the Kanawha River will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the waterway. This rule is needed to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for the Riverfest fireworks display from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on August 4, 2018. The safety zone covers all navigable waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker (MM) 43.1 to MM 44.2, in Nitro, WV. The duration of this safety zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display.

No vessel or person is permitted to enter this safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative via radio on channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of any changes in the date and times of enforcement through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts (SMIBs), as appropriate.

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, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This rule involves a temporary safety zone lasting only one hour and thirty minutes that will prohibit entry on a one-mile stretch of the Kanawha River on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety 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 temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T08-0686 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0686 Safety Zone; Kanawha River, Nitro, WV.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Kanawha River from mile marker (MM) 43.1 to MM 44.2.

(b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8:45 p.m. through 10:15 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio Valley.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or designated representative via radio on channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-253-7465.

(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of any changes in the date and times of enforcement through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts (SMIBs), as appropriate.

Dated: July 18, 2018. M.B. Zamperini, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2018-16064 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084; FRL-9981-36—Region 6] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing, Superfund Site (Site), located in Greenville, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES:

This direct final deletion is effective September 10, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084, by one of the following methods:

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

Email: [email protected].

Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; Contact: Brian W. Mueller (214) 665-7167. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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

City of Greenville Municipal Bldg., 2821 Washington Street, Greenville, TX 75401, Telephone Number: (903) 457-3130, Hours of Operation: Monday thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Telephone number: (800) 533-3508, Contact: Brian W. Mueller: (214) 665-7167, Hours of operation: Monday thru Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Records Management Center, Central File Room, Technical Park Center Bld. E, 1st Floor, Room 1003, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78753, Telephone Numbers: (512) 239-2900 and (800) 633-9363, Hours of operation: Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 6SF-RL 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-7167, email [email protected].

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

EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

(1) EPA consulted with the State of Texas prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, Greenville Herald Banner. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

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

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

The Old Esco Manufacturing (“Old Esco” or “site”) Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID TXD980573808) is located at 500 Forrester Street, Greenville, Hunt County, Texas. The geographic coordinates of the Site are Latitude 33.138732° N and Longitude −96.075961° W. The facility, which is currently abandoned, is situated on a 4.7-acre tract of land owned by the City of Greenville.

The boundaries of the Site are surrounded by fencing. The Site is bordered to the north by Forrester Street, to the east by a residential area and vacant lot, to the south by the frontage road of Interstate 30 and a drainage pathway to Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River, and to the west by a private lake. The Site consisted of several attached buildings that form one main building (125 by 500 feet), a small shed (15 by 20 feet), and vacant land. A former soil and gravel parking lot is located on the north and west sides of the building.

Esco began operations at the Site in the late 1940s, leasing the property and building, until approximately 1970, when the company relocated to another property in Greenville, Texas. In 1983, Esco purchased the Site and owned it until it defaulted for non-payment of taxes in 2001. Esco manufactured electrical transformers and high voltage switchgear for electrical distribution at the Site. Other manufacturing operations at the Site included metal fabrication, welding, grinding, sandblasting, silver electroplating, and painting. Completed transformers from the facility were either shipped dry (i.e., empty of coolant) or were filled with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) dielectric oil, depending on the requirements of the purchaser.

PCBs are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that were commonly used for various applications from approximately 1929 until 1979. PCBs were regulated under a series of EPA actions culminating with a ban in 1979 on manufacturing, processing, distribution, and use of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Items such as transformers and hydraulic fluids were identified as high-risk sources and were targeted for accelerated phase-out.

In July 1980, the Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) received a complaint about the historic disposal of transformer oil by Esco on the property. The investigation by TDWR revealed the presence of PCBs at concentrations of 760, 8,400, and 85,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the soils. In April 1981, the TDWR recommended that Esco conduct an extent-of-contamination survey within 180 days and develop a removal plan that would eliminate the PCB-contaminated soil from the Site. In 1990, Esco filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy without conducting the cleanup. In 1991, the Chapter 11 bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In 2003, the (TCEQ) conducted a Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, and installed one new monitoring well and collected 23 surface and subsurface soil samples. Chemical analysis of the surface soil samples indicated the presence of the PCB, Aroclor-1260 in concentrations ranging from 0.338 to 2,390 mg/kg. Chemical analysis of the subsurface soil samples indicated the presence of Aroclor-1260 at a concentration of 12.2 mg/kg. Ground water was encountered at approximately 10 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Chemical analysis of the ground water samples collected from two monitoring wells indicated the presence of Aroclor-1260.

In 2004, the TCEQ formally referred the Site to EPA Region 6 for assistance. From 2005 through 2007, EPA's removal program conducted numerous field sampling and assessment activities at the Site and adjacent properties to determine the extent of contamination and for National Priorities List (NPL) Hazard Ranking System scoring purposes. The Site was proposed to the NPL on March 19, 2008, (73 FR 14742). The Site was added to the NPL as final on September 3, 2008, (73 FR 51368).

History of EPA CERCLA Removal Actions

EPA conducted two Time Critical Removal Actions which began in August 2008 and September 2009, respectively. The purpose of these Removal Actions was to investigate the PCB-contaminated soils in the residential and other adjacent areas of the Site; and to eliminate the imminent threat and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or to the environment, posed by site-related contamination associated with the Old Esco Manufacturing Site. Based on removal assessment activities conducted by EPA, the Old Esco Manufacturing Site and surrounding residential properties were found to contain elevated levels of PCBs above the EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) screening level of 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).

First Removal Action

The first of these two Removal Actions was completed in January 2009. This Removal Action included:

• Removal of PCB-contaminated soils with a concentration greater than 1.0 mg/kg from six adjacent residential properties and the adjacent Texas Department of Transportation road right-of-way drainage ditches located directly east of the Site.

• Restoration of the six residential properties and roadside ditches.

• Transportation and disposal of 922 tons of soils in the CSC Landfill in Avalon, Texas with concentrations of PCBs equal to or greater than 50.0 mg/kg (TSCA soils) and 4,221 tons of soils in the Maloy Landfill near Campbell, Texas with concentrations of PCBs less than 50.0 mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).

• On-site consolidation and storage of approximately 4,000 cubic yards (yd3) of TSCA soils in the building.

• Fencing of the perimeter of the Esco property.

• Removal and disposal of 120 yd3 of asbestos-containing materials from the on-site building in the Maloy Landfill.

• Placement of ripple dams/storm water controls in drainage pathways between residential properties and the Site to reduce the potential for contaminated soil backflow onto clean areas during flooding situations.

• Placement of ripple dams at several locations on the Esco drainage system to reduce off-site soil migration.

Second Removal Action

The second Removal Action was completed in December 2009. This Removal Action included:

• Removal of soils with concentrations of PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg from three residential properties and portions of the road side drainage ditches along Fannin and Forrester Streets.

• Restoration of the three residential properties and the road side drainage ditches.

• Transportation and disposal of approximately 3,194 tons of soils in the Maloy Landfill with concentrations of PCBs less than 50.0 mg/kg (Non-TSCA soils).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

In 2009, EPA's remedial program started and completed the off-site Remedial Investigation (RI) and extent of contamination study by collecting soil samples for PCB analysis from an additional 52 residential properties, and from Texas Department of Transportation highway median and road right-of-way drainage ditches that had not been previously sampled. The RI also included the collection of twelve co-located water and sediment samples from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River, and the collection of ground water samples for PCB analyses.

In 2010, EPA's remedial program completed the full RI/FS. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from the on-site areas of the Site to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Sampling results showed that soils as deep as 10.0 feet below ground surface were impacted by PCBs and required remediation. TSCA PCB regulations applied to the Site because surface and subsurface soils were contaminated by PCBs. The concentrations of PCBs required that the contaminated soils be managed as non-TSCA (i.e., concentration less than 50.0 mg/l total PCBs) or TSCA wastes (i.e., concentration equal to or greater than 50.0 mg/kg total PCBs).

Ground water samples were collected from the on-site monitoring wells to determine the nature and extent of contamination in the ground water underlying the Site. The primary ground water contaminants were PCBs and the extent of ground water impact was limited. A total of nine monitoring wells were installed on the Site. Five were installed and sampled prior to the Site being listed on the NPL. In 2003 the wells were sampled and the results indicated that the PCB Aroclor-1260 was present in the ground water in two monitoring wells at concentrations ranging from 9.26 to 0.379 micrograms per liter (µg/L). In 2009 the wells were resampled and the same two wells reported PCB results of 1.1 and 1.5 µg/L, both above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.5 µg/L.

In 2010, four additional wells were installed by EPA's contractor. Nine ground water samples were collected for PCB analysis in 2010. The ground water chemical analytical data collected indicated that only Aroclor-1260 was detected in four wells ranging from 0.04 to 0.46 µg/L, which were below the MCL of 0.5 µg/L.

Surface water samples were collected from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of surface water contamination. No Aroclors were detected at the appropriate detection limits and no further action was recommended for surface water.

Sediment data were collected from Horse Creek and the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River to determine the nature and extent of sediment contamination. Although the maximum sediment concentrations for Aroclor-1268 and Aroclor-1260 were above the screening benchmark for sediments, the screening level ecological risk assessment findings indicated that no further action was required for sediments.

Remedial Action Objectives

The Remedial Action Objectives to be achieved by the Site Remedy were:

• Prevent direct dermal contact, incidental ingestion and inhalation of fugitive dust from PCB-contaminated soils,

• Prevent off-site migration of PCB-contaminated soils to Horse Creek or the Cowleech Fork of the Sabine River,

• Prevent exposure to Site soils that may pose a risk to ecological receptors, and

• Ensure that current and future receptors were not exposed to ground water that could possibly be contaminated with PCBs above the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L.

Remedial Action Goals

The excavation, on-site treatment, and off-site disposal of the soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg would allow the Site to be developed for reuse (i.e., residential and/or recreational and commercial and/or industrial land use). The remediation goal for total PCBs for the Site was 1.0 mg/kg.

Selected Remedy

The selected remedy for the Site, as described in the original 2010 Record of Decision (ROD), was Soil Excavation and Treatment with Off-site Disposal for Residential and/or Recreational Land Use, and included the following major components:

• Soil Excavation, Treatment, and Disposal Components: Approximately 5,200 and 16,250 yd3 of TSCA and non-TSCA soils, respectively, with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) were to be excavated and transported off-site to a permitted waste disposal facility. Soils were to be excavated to a maximum depth of 15.0 bgs, consistent with the State's requirements. Soils with a concentration of total PCBs equal to or greater than 50.0 mg/kg were to be disposed of at a TSCA-permitted landfill. Soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 1.0 mg/kg and less than 50.0 mg/kg were to be disposed of at a non-TSCA landfill. Approximately 1,850 yd3 of soils with a concentration of total PCBs greater than 100.0 mg/kg, constituting principal threat wastes, were to be treated on-site by solidification or stabilization techniques prior to disposal. Approximately 4,000 yd3 of TSCA soils, with a concentration of total PCBs less than 100.0 mg/kg, staged in the existing building from EPA's first removal action, were also to be transported off-site for disposal. Excavated areas were to be backfilled with clean off-site soils and the Site was to be graded to drain and not pond water. The existing building and its foundation were to be demolished and also transported off-site for disposal.

• Institutional Controls Component—Institutional Controls (ICs), in the form of deed restrictions, were to be implemented to prevent exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground water.

• Ground Water Monitoring Component—Ground water monitoring was to be conducted annually for a minimum period of five years to evaluate the protectiveness of the Selected Remedy. Ground water monitoring was to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in the ground water did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L for three consecutive monitoring periods. The additional data collected during the annual monitoring events was to be used to confirm previous PCB data and further evaluate trends over time. The additional monitoring data was to also allow decisions to be made in the future regarding ground water impacts and evaluation of risks to human health, the need for additional monitoring, whether to continue maintaining ICs, and whether any additional actions would be needed to protect human health and the environment. These decisions were to be made during the first five-year review report for the Site.

• Operations and Maintenance Component—Operations and maintenance was to involve the ground water component of the remedy to ensure that the remedy performed as intended.

• Five-Year Review Component—Because this alternative would result in hazardous substances (i.e., PCBs) remaining on-site in the ground water, possibly above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review was to be conducted no less often than every five years after initiation of the RA to ensure that the remedy was, or will continue to be, protective of human health and the environment. Five-year reviews were to be discontinued if the ground water monitoring data indicate that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L for three consecutive monitoring periods.

Third Removal Action

On May 4, 2011, EPA signed a Third Action Memorandum, which documented the continuation of the Time Critical Removal Action and approval of the Consistency Exemption for the Site. The Consistency Exemption documented that the continued response actions were appropriate and consistent with the 2010 ROD selected remedy and remedial actions.

The Third Removal Action was completed with issuance of the final Pollution Report #10 on September 30, 2011. Between May 24 and September 12, 2011, all PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and transported off-site to permitted disposal facilities, and the existing building and foundation was demolished and also transported off-site for disposal. A total of 28,288 tons of Non-TSCA soils, 24,137 tons of TSCA PCB-contaminated soils, 343 tons of construction debris, and 1,455 tons of non-TSCA PCB-contaminated Class II concrete were transported off-site for disposal. The TSCA soils were disposed of at the CSC Landfill and the non-TSCA soils, construction debris, and non-TSCA PCB Class II concrete were disposed of at the Maloy Landfill. Following confirmation that all PCB-contaminated had been removed, excavated areas were backfilled with approximately 60,000 yd 3 of clean off-site soils and the Site was graded so that it would drain and prevent the formation of standing water.

No Further Action Is Necessary Record of Decision Amendment and Explanation of Significant Differences (2011)

The No Further Action is Necessary Record of Decision Amendment and Explanation of Significant Differences (ROD Amendment) was signed on September 28, 2011. The ROD Amendment was prepared to document EPA's implementation and completion of the post-ROD Third Removal Action for the PCB-contaminated soils at the Site. The completion of the soil clean up, which utilized the selected remedy in the original 2010 ROD, eliminated the need to conduct further soil remedial actions at the Site. The Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) portion of the ROD Amendment presented the details of non-significant or minor changes to the July 2011 Proposed Plan. After the 2011 Proposed Plan was proposed to the public, but before the ROD Amendment was finalized, EPA received the 2011 annual ground water monitoring data, which showed that all concentrations for total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L. As a result, EPA determined that changes to the 2011 Proposed Plan were necessary, and the ESD documented those changes. The changes would not have a significant impact on the scope, performance or cost of the remedy.

• The 2011 Proposed Plan stated that ground water monitoring was to be conducted annually for a minimum of five years to evaluate the protectiveness of the proposed remedy. Ground water monitoring was to be discontinued if the concentration of total PCBs in ground water did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 ug/l for three consecutive monitoring periods. The ESD added to the Ground Water Monitoring Component that PCB concentrations had already been below the MCL for two (2010 and 2011) consecutive monitoring periods and that if the PCB levels were below the MCL in the third round of ground water sampling scheduled for 2012, ground water monitoring would be discontinued.

• Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions were to be implemented to prevent exposure of human receptors to contaminated ground water. The ESD stated that these institutional controls would not be implemented at the Site because the 2010 and 2011 monitoring results for PCBs were below the MCL.

• The ESD eliminated the Operations and Maintenance of the ground water component of the remedy after ground water monitoring was to be discontinued.

• Five-Year Reviews would be discontinued if the ground water data indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 µg/L.

Cleanup Levels Soils

As stated above, during the Third Removal Action all PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and transported off-site to permitted disposal facilities. The Removal Action was completed by September 2011. After the Removal Action was completed, EPA collected post-construction confirmation soil samples from the bottom of the 52 excavated grids to verify that all PCB-contaminated soils above the total PCB cleanup level of 1.00 mg/kg had been removed. All soil samples were reported below the 1.00 mg/kg cleanup level.

Ground Water

EPA conducted three consecutive annual (2010, 2011, and 2012) ground water sampling events, and all laboratory total PCB results were below the MCL level of 0.5 μg/L. Ground water monitoring has been discontinued and the nine ground water monitoring wells were plugged and properly abandoned in 2012. Although a requirement for Five-Year Reviews was included in the decision documents, Five-Year Reviews were not conducted and are no longer required because the ground water data indicated that the concentration of total PCBs did not exceed the federal MCL of 0.5 μg/L and the Site met unlimited use/unrestricted exposure criteria for the soils and groundwater.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

The QA/QC program for the Third Removal Action was conducted in accordance with the Site Removal QA/QC Work Plan prepared by the EPA Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor and the EPA Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contractor. The START contractor was responsible for post-excavation confirmation, soil sample collection, and coordination of sample analyses performed by either the EPA Houston Laboratory or a commercial laboratory selected by the START contractor. All sample results were either validated by the EPA Houston Laboratory or by a START representative.

The cleanup activities met all QA/QC requirements for the Site. The EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) conducted daily oversight throughout the Removal Action activities. During the Removal Action the TCEQ Project Manager conducted routine inspections and was in regular contact with the RPM. The TCEQ Project Manager conducted two site visits to verify that construction was complete.

Community Involvement

Public participation activities have satisfied the requirements of CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been interested and involved with Site activities. EPA has kept the community and other interested parties updated on Site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation for the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in the Greenville Herald Banner.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Environment Quality, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 10, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

Dated: July 19, 2018. Arturo Blanco, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended in the table by removing the entry for “TX, Old Esco Manufacturing, Greenville”.
[FR Doc. 2018-16119 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9981-26—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of the Former Process Area (FPA) portion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site in Kings Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final Notice of Partial Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Ohio, through the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions in the FPA under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES:

This direct final partial deletion is effective September 25, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register (FR) informing the public that the partial deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted by email or mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-6036, email address: [email protected] or hand deliver: Superfund Records Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: (312) 886-0900. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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

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

Salem Township Library, 535 West Pike Street, Morrow, OH 45152, Phone: (513) 899-2588. Hours: Monday and Tuesday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon, OH 45036, Phone: (513) 695-1000. Hours: Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the Peters Cartridge Factory Site (Peters Cartridge Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to the Former Process Area (FPA) portion of the Site, property identification numbers (PINs) 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-400-012. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CERCLA. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions (RA) financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Peters Cartridge Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed RAs if future conditions warrant such actions.

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete the FPA from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites, or portions thereof, may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. the remedial investigation (RI) has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621 and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of RAs where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site or a portion of a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Partial Deletion Procedures

The following procedures apply to the deletion of the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site:

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

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

(3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, an announcement of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

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

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

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Partial Deletion

The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

The Peters Cartridge Site (CERCLIS ID: OHD 987051083) is an approximately 71-acre parcel of land located along the south bank of the Little Miami River, in Warren County, Ohio. The Peters Cartridge Site is located at 1415 Grandin Road, Kings Mills, 45034, Hamilton Township, Ohio. Approximately one acre of the Site is located east of Grandin Road.

The Peters Cartridge Factory produced ordnance and shot shell ammunition at the Site from 1887 to 1934. The Remington Arms Company, Inc. (Remington) purchased the Peters Cartridge Factory in 1934 and continued the production of shot shell and cartridge ammunition at the facility. During the Second World War, Remington produced .30 and .45-caliber carbine ammunition for the U.S. Government, until 1944, after which Remington discontinued operations at the facility.

The Peters Cartridge Site was subsequently divided into multiple land parcels that have been owned and occupied by various non-ammunition making entities since 1944. None of these companies are responsible for the contamination that is being addressed at the Site.

OEPA noted the release of possible hazardous substances at the Site in 1992. OEPA conducted a preliminary assessment in 1993 and brought the Site to the attention of EPA. OEPA conducted several screening investigations and evaluations at the Site between 1994 and 1999. During these investigations, OEPA collected soil, sediment, and groundwater samples. OEPA analyzed the samples for volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and metals.

OEPA's investigations concluded that the Site was impacted by copper, lead, and mercury. These metals are associated with the former munitions manufacturing operations. The impacts appeared to be generally confined to surface soils in the former manufacturing and storage areas in the FPA. OEPA detected some SVOCs and pesticides in sediment samples from the Little Miami River, but these compounds were not found in soil or sediment samples from the Site and are not Site-related.

EPA proposed the Peters Cartridge Site to the NPL on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). EPA finalized the Peters Cartridge Site on the NPL on September 18, 2012 after negotiations with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to implement the cleanup remedy in EPA's 2009 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site failed (77 FR 57495). The effective date of the final rule was October 18, 2012.

The Peters Cartridge Site is a single operable unit consisting of three areas: The FPA, which is the portion of the Site EPA is deleting from the NPL, and the Hamilton Township Property (HTP) and Lowland Area (LA) which are not being deleted and will remain on the NPL.

The FPA is the production portion of the Site where most of the Peters Cartridge manufacturing processes took place. The FPA is comprised of three parcels of developed land that total 14.29 acres and contain six buildings.

Most of the FPA is relatively flat and covered by buildings, concrete or asphalt paving, and small landscaped areas. Discontinuous areas of ash-like fill were present around the buildings. Portions of the FPA are used by commercial or industrial businesses.

The HTP is a 56-acre parcel of unimproved wooded land south and southwest of the FPA. The HTP was primarily used to store the finished munitions manufactured at the Site. The HTP consists of steeply-sloping bedrock ridges and rolling topography with dense vegetation. The HTP contains bunkers, concrete supports, foundations, conveyance structures, and other facilities historically used by the Peters Cartridge Company.

The HTP contains a former salvage area in the northwestern portion of the property that is unpaved and is surrounded by a steel fence and mature woody and herbaceous vegetation. The former salvage area features buildings original to the former salvage yard and also contains discontinuous areas of ash-like fill. Hamilton Township plans to retain the HTP as open space.

The LA is located at the northern edge of the Site within the Little Miami River floodplain. The LA is differentiated from the rest of the Site by steel fencing, thick vegetation, and steep topography along the southern border of the Little Miami River Scenic Trail. The trail was a historical railroad right-of-way that was redeveloped as a bike and walking path.

North of the trail, the LA includes some historical manufacturing areas characterized by the presence of ash-like fill, concrete foundations, masonry structures, and concrete culverts/outfalls that drain surface water from the upland portions of the Site. Future land use in the LA is expected to remain recreational/open space.

This partial deletion pertains to all media within the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site (see Current Site Layout in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1954 in the Docket). The remaining areas of the Site, including the HTP and LA, will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS)

The PRPs conducted a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the Site under a 2004 Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. The RI investigated the contamination at the Site and the FS evaluated potential cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable Site risks identified in the human health and ecological risk assessments.

The PRPs conducted the RI in multiple phases from 2005 to 2009. The PRPs collected surface (zero to two feet below ground surface) and subsurface (greater than two feet below ground surface) soil samples from 112 soil boring locations in the FPA, 199 soil borings in the HTP, and 69 soil borings in the LA. The PRPs also collected samples of surface swale-soil from 29 locations in the HTP area, sediment samples from seven on-Site locations near the discharge points of the on-Site drainage features near the Little Miami River, 22 surface water sampling locations, and groundwater samples from eleven groundwater monitoring wells. The PRPs did not collect swale-soil samples from the FPA or LA because swale-soil was not present in these areas.

The results of the PRPs' human health risk assessment indicate that surface soil in the FPA posed an unacceptable risk to current commercial/industrial workers, utility workers and trespassers, and to future construction workers and residents. The risks were due to the concentrations of arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene and lead detected in the surface soil. The surface soil in the HTP posed an unacceptable risk to current trespassers and utility workers, and to future construction workers, residents and recreational users in the HTP. These risks were due to arsenic, benz(a)pyrene, lead and antimony detected in the HTP. The concentrations of lead in the LA surface soil posed an unacceptable risk to current utility workers, and to recreational users in off-trail areas.

The risk assessment determined that shallow, on-Site groundwater would pose an unacceptable cancer risk to potential future residents if the groundwater was used as a residential water supply. This risk is due to arsenic detected in the groundwater, but at concentrations below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The current potential for human exposure to on-Site groundwater is limited, since the Site is used for commercial and industrial purposes and on-Site groundwater is not used for potable or any other uses, including irrigation. Potable water at the Site is currently supplied by the Warren County Water District. The groundwater is also at a depth where direct contact during intrusive activities is unlikely to occur.

The PRPs' ecological risk assessment indicated that surface soil in the terrestrial habits at the Site posed an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors. The risks were due to the concentrations of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium and zinc detected at the Site. The ecological risk assessment also identified potential ecological risks at the Site based on exposure to erosional material and surface water in the concrete-lined culverts at the Site, and to sediment and surface water in culvert outfalls along the shoreline of the Little Miami River.

OEPA conducted additional studies of the Little Miami River in 1999 and 2007. These studies indicated that Site-related contaminants were not impacting ecological receptors in the River. On-Site drainage features, however, had the potential to transport Site-related contaminants to surface water and river sediment.

The PRPs completed an FS in 2009. The FS developed and evaluated four cleanup alternatives to address the unacceptable risks at the Site. The FS evaluated soil remediation technologies to clean up the surface soil/swale contaminants in the FPA, HTP and LA, and in the upper six inches of shoreline sediment at culvert outfalls.

The FS determined that focusing the cleanup on the lead-impacted soil at the Site would result in the remediation of the other contaminants detected at the Site since the primary Site risk was due to exposure to lead-impacted soil. The FS also assumed that institutional controls (ICs) would be used to prevent residential land use and groundwater use at the Site.

Selected Remedy

EPA developed remedial action objectives (RAOs) to address the unacceptable risks to human health and the environment identified for exposure to on-Site soil/swale contaminants, the shoreline sediments in the Little Miami River, and groundwater.

EPA's RAOs for on-Site soil are to: Prevent human exposure to surface/swale soil having chemical concentrations resulting in a cumulative excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 × 10−4 or a non-cancer hazard index greater than 1; prevent human exposure to surface and subsurface soil with lead concentrations greater than EPA's residential standard (i.e., 400 mg/kg) or, if an IC restricts residential development, prevent human exposure to surface/swale soil with lead concentrations greater than EPA's commercial standard (i.e., 800 mg/kg); and prevent ecological receptor exposures to on-Site surface soil/swale soil with copper, lead, and mercury concentrations creating unacceptable levels of risk.

EPA's RAO for shoreline sediments is to prevent the exposure of aquatic receptors to contaminants of ecological concern in the Little Miami River by limiting the migration of Site-related contaminants in depositional material in the channelized outfalls and deltas bordering the river. This will be done by removing on-Site sources that contribute to elevated concentrations in the surface water discharged from the site.

EPA's RAO for groundwater is to prevent future residents from ingesting groundwater having an arsenic concentration that exceeds its MCL. This will be done as a limited RA using ICs to restrict groundwater use at the Site.

EPA selected a cleanup remedy for the Site in a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 28, 2009. The major components of the selected remedy detailed in the ROD are:

(1) Excavate surface soil in the FPA to a depth of at least two feet below ground surface (bgs) in areas that exceed the EPA commercial standard for lead of 800 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and excavate surface soil in the HTP and LA to a depth of at least two feet bgs in areas that exceed the EPA residential standard for lead of 400 mg/kg. The actual areas to be excavated and depths will be determined and evaluated during the Remedial Design (RD). The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean fill material to the existing grade.

(2) Clean out and remove debris and erosional material at drainage culvert and outfall areas. Excavate three identified shoreline sediment areas to a depth of approximately six inches and backfill the shoreline sediment areas with clean fill material.

(3) Consolidate impacted soil, sediment, and erosional material in an on-Site consolidation cell. The cell will be constructed with an impermeable composite liner and cap system developed to be consistent with State regulations. A flexible membrane liner with a geotextile cushion will be installed as the main component of the cell liner system.

(4) Cap the consolidation cell with a composite cap system consisting of a six-inch-thick vegetative support layer, a two-foot-thick layer of compacted low-permeability clay, a geocomposite drainage layer, a flexible geomembrane, and a low-permeability clay layer beneath the geomembrane. The final cap design will be developed to be compliant with State regulations during the RD phase of the project. During the RD phase it will be determined whether an access restriction will be required based on future use of the area.

(5) Monitor groundwater to ensure that there is no migration of contaminants from the consolidation cell.

(6) ICs in the form of deed restrictions will be required to accomplish the following: Restrict land use to nonresidential purposes; limit future Site activities to prevent intrusive activities that could compromise the consolidation cell; and restrict on-Site groundwater from being used as a residential water supply.

(7) A review will be conducted within five years after the initiation of the RA and every five years thereafter to ensure that the selected remedy is still protective of human health and the environment, and will include a determination of whether land use changes have occurred or are likely to occur.

EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the lead PRP for the Site, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), to conduct the RD and RA work required by the ROD on March 30, 2012, after negotiations with DuPont and the other PRPs failed. DuPont conducted a Pre-Design Investigation (PDI) in 2012-2013. During the PDI, DuPont further delineated the extent of soil with lead concentrations above cleanup standards that would require excavation.

DuPont's PDI found that approximately 10,300 cubic yards of soil within the excavation areas outlined in the ROD was characteristically hazardous for lead based on the results of toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing. The PDI also found that some of the characteristically hazardous lead-contaminated soil was located in some areas of the Site at depths greater than two feet bgs.

EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) modifying the ROD based on the PDI in June 2015. The modified remedy required the excavation of all characteristically hazardous soils at the Site, regardless of depth. All soils with concentrations of lead considered to be characteristic hazardous waste were required to be stabilized to render them nonhazardous before being placed in the on-Site consolidation cell. Based on the PDI, the deepest excavation was estimated to be four feet bgs.

The ESD also made it clear that an Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP) was required as part of the selected remedy. The ESD also explained EPA and OEPA's determination that a 2.0 percent final slope for the composite cap system over the on-Site consolidation cell was acceptable and provided a waiver of the 5.0 percent final slope requirements in Ohio Administrative Code 3745-29-08(C)(4)(c).

Response Actions

DuPont's contractor, Parsons, began RA construction activities at the Site in March 2015. Parsons excavated surface soil in the FPA with lead concentrations above EPA's commercial cleanup level for lead of 800 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs; and surface/swale soil in the HTP and LA with concentrations above EPA's residential cleanup level for lead of 400 mg/kg from a depth of zero to two feet bgs.

Parsons additionally excavated all surface/swale and subsurface soil in the FPA, HTP and LA that exceeded EPA's hazardous waste TCLP concentration for lead of 5.0 milligrams/liter (mg/l), regardless of depth (zero to four feet).

Parsons consolidated the excavated soil in an on-Site consolidation cell Parsons constructed in the HTP at the southern end of the Site. Parsons treated the soil with TCLP concentrations above EPA's hazardous waste criteria with a proprietary in-situ stabilizing mixture that rendered the material nonhazardous prior to excavation and consolidation in the on-Site cell.

The excavated areas included: Most of the area sampled adjacent to and between the buildings in the FPA, and isolated areas on hill slopes behind the buildings; the HTP adjacent to the western portion of the FPA and LA; three small, isolated areas in the HTP upland areas; most of the portion of the LA between the Little Miami River Scenic Trail and the FPA; and isolated areas in the LA in the floodplain terrace along the Little Miami River and adjacent to Grandin Road. Four areas within the FPA and LA required excavation to four feet bgs to remove soil exceeding the regulatory level for TCLP lead.

Parsons backfilled the excavated areas with clean soil covered by six inches of clean topsoil to existing grade.

Parsons excavated the sediments from the on-Site drainage channels, concrete culverts and outfalls and consolidated these materials in the consolidation cell with the excavated soil. Parsons excavated and disposed of trash located in one area of the Site, including hazardous and nonhazardous soil and a small amount of asbestos-containing material, at appropriate off-Site disposal facilities.

The consolidation cell has a vegetated surface with a stone access road across the top of cap. The road provides access to the leachate sump and monitoring wells located on the north side of the cell.

Parsons submitted a Construction Completion Report documenting the completion of the RA construction activities to EPA and OEPA on June 7, 2017. EPA issued a letter approving DuPont's Construction Completion Report on June 26, 2017.

Cleanup Levels

The cleanup levels for the Site are: EPA's commercial cleanup level for lead of 800 mg/kg for surface soil in the FPA; EPA's residential cleanup level for lead of 400 mg/kg for surface soil in the HTP and LA; and EPA's TCLP hazardous waste leaching criteria of 5 mg/l for lead in all soil, regardless of depth. The ROD also requires groundwater use restrictions for on-Site groundwater with arsenic concentrations above the MCL of 10 micrograms/liter, and the excavation of debris and erosional material in on-Site culverts and outfalls, and of shoreline sediment in the Little Miami River.

Parsons determined the limits of the soil and sediment excavations, and the limits of soil stabilization required to meet the cleanup criteria in the ROD and ESD during the RD based on the results of the PDI. Parsons verified that all impacted soil was excavated to required limits by conducting surveys of the excavated areas before and after excavation for a point-by-point comparison. Parsons confirmed that all hazardous soil was properly treated prior to excavation by testing the stabilized soil in each grid for TCLP lead, arsenic, and mercury to confirm the soil was nonhazardous. All post-treatment samples passed the TCLP values for these compounds prior to excavation and consolidation in the on-Site cell except for one area which required a second round of treatment.

Parsons, EPA and OEPA verified that the sediment, debris and eroded materials were removed from the on-Site culverts, outfalls and the river shoreline through visual inspections conducted prior to and during an August 16, 2016 pre-final Site inspection.

Operation and Maintenance

DuPont is responsible for conducting operation and maintenance (O&M) at the Peters Cartridge Site consistent with a January 2017 O&M and ICIAP. The only O&M required for the FPA is to maintain, monitor and enforce the ROD-required IC, which is in the form of an Environmental Covenant (EC), and to conduct groundwater sampling, as needed.

The current owner of the FPA, Peters Cartridge Factory, LLC (PCF), filed the EC required by the ROD pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §§ 5301.80 to 5301.92, on the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site. PCF filed the EC with the Warren County Recorder's Office on January 30, 2018, Instrument 2018-003019. A copy of the recorded EC is in Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1942 in the Docket.

PCF's EC: (1) Restricts land use in the FPA to commercial and/or industrial use, and prohibits residential use of the property unless and until additional cleanup activities are performed and the EC is amended or terminated; (2) prohibits the extraction or use of groundwater beneath the FPA for any purpose, potable or otherwise, unless approved by EPA and for the purposes of investigation, monitoring, groundwater remediation or for a response activity; and (3) requires all excavation, digging, grading or disturbance of the ground surface in the FPA to be conducted in accordance with the September 2017 Soil Management Plan developed for the Site.

Five-Year Reviews

EPA is required to conduct statutory five-year reviews at the Peters Cartridge Site because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA must complete the first five-year review of the Site by December 12, 2019.

Community Involvement

EPA satisfied public participation activities for the Peters Cartridge Site required in Sections 113(k) and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. EPA developed a Community Involvement Plan for the Site in 2009. EPA made the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan for the Site available to the public in June 2009. EPA placed copies of the RI/FS Report and Proposed Plan in the administrative record file maintained at the EPA Region 5 Records Center in Chicago, Illinois, and in the local information repositories for the Site at the Salem Township Library, 535 W Pike Street, Morrow, Ohio 45152 and the Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036. EPA also posted the RI/FS and Proposed Plan to the EPA Region 5 website at: http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/peterscartridge/index.htm.

EPA published notices advertising the availability of the RI/FS Report and EPA's Proposed Plan for the Site in the Pulse-Journal, Little Miami/Kings Mills Edition and the Western Star, in Lebanon, Ohio on July 2, 2009.

EPA held a public comment period on its proposed cleanup plan for the Site from July 6, 2009 through August 6, 2009. EPA also held a public meeting to present its Proposed Plan for the Site to a broader community audience on July 15, 2009. At the meeting, representatives from EPA and OEPA answered questions about the contamination at the Site and the cleanup alternatives that were considered.

EPA also used the meeting to solicit a wider cross-section of community input on the reasonably anticipated future land uses of the Site. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, including representatives from the Little Miami River Group and Hamilton Township.

EPA considered the public comments received during the public meeting and public comment period prior to selecting a final remedy for the Site in the ROD. EPA's responses to the comments received are included in a Responsiveness Summary, which is part of the ROD.

EPA provided additional opportunities for public participation when issuing the ESD. Although there are no requirements to hold a public meeting or formal public comment period when an ESD is issued, EPA and OEPA voluntarily decided to conduct a public availability session to inform the local community of the changes in the original remedy and answer questions. EPA and OEPA chose to involve the local community because of the community's interest in the Site, and held an availability session on February 12, 2015. Approximately 40 people from the surrounding area attended the meeting.

EPA made the ESD available to the public by placing it in the administrative record with other documents supporting the ESD, in the information repositories. EPA also coordinated with OEPA to ensure that a notice summarizing the ESD and explaining EPA's reasons for the remedy changes was published in a local newspaper after the ESD was approved.

EPA published a notice announcing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Cincinnati Enquirer prior to publishing this deletion in the Federal Register. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on to support the deletion of the FPA from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories and at http://www.regulations.gov.

Determination That the Criteria for Partial Deletion Have Been Met

The FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site meets all of the site completion requirements specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions and RAOs for the FPA set forth in the 2009 ROD and 2015 ESD have been implemented for all pathways of exposure in the FPA. The selected RAs, RAOs, and associated cleanup levels for the FPA are consistent with EPA policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is necessary to protect human health or the environment in the FPA.

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP states that a Superfund site or a portion of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in consultation with the State of Ohio, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented at the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site and that no further response action by the responsible parties is appropriate on this property.

V. Partial Deletion Action

EPA, with concurrence of the State of Ohio through the OEPA, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed at the FPA. Therefore, EPA is deleting the FPA portion of the Peters Cartridge Site, PINs 16-12-453-004, 16-12-453-005 and 16-12-400-012, from the NPL.

Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 25, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 27, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before its effective date and the partial deletion will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

Dated: July 17, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the listing under Ohio for “Peters Cartridge Factory” to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes (a) *         *         *         *         *         *         * OH Peters Cartridge Factory Kings Mills P *         *         *         *         *         *         * (a) * * *    *         *         *         *         *         *         * P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
[FR Doc. 2018-16123 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9981-21—Region 8] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces the deletion of the Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site (Site) located in Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES:

This action is effective July 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the site information repositories.

Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, UT 84047; Phone: (801-944-7641); Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6762, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters Superfund Site, Sandy City, Salt Lake County, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register (83 FR 25635-25638) on June 4, 2018.

The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was July 5, 2018. No public comments were received.

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

Dated: July 16, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

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

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended]C 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended in the table by removing the entry for “UT, Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters, Sandy City, P”.
[FR Doc. 2018-16118 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-XG327 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure of Angling category northern area trophy fishery.

SUMMARY:

NMFS closes the northern area Angling category fishery for large medium and giant (“trophy” (i.e., measuring 73 inches curved fork length or greater)) Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT). This action is being taken to prevent further overharvest of the Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota.

DATES:

Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, July 26, 2018, through December 31, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah McLaughlin or Tom Warren, (978) 281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments.

NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.

Angling Category Large Medium and Giant Northern “Trophy” Fishery Closure

The 2018 BFT fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and subject to an annual calendar-year quota, began January 1, 2018. The Angling category season opened January 1, 2018, and continues through December 31, 2018. The currently codified Angling category quota is 195.2 mt, of which 4.5 mt is allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 1.5 mt allocated for each of the following areas: North of 39°18′ N lat. (off Great Egg Inlet, NJ) (the “northern area”); south of 39°18′ N lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico (the “southern area”); and in the Gulf of Mexico. Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater.

Based on reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System, NMFS has determined that the codified Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota has been reached and exceeded and that a closure of the northern area trophy BFT fishery is warranted. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT north of 39°18′ N lat. by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (when fishing recreationally) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on July 26, 2018. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2018. This action is intended to prevent further overharvest of the Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). NMFS previously closed the 2018 trophy BFT fishery in the southern area on March 17, 2018 (83 FR 12141, March 20, 2018) and in the Gulf of Mexico on May 13, 2018 (83 FR 22602, May 16, 2018). Therefore, with this closure of the northern area trophy BFT fishery as of July 26, 2018, the Angling category trophy BFT fishery will be closed in all areas for 2018.

If needed, subsequent Angling category adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. Information regarding the Angling category fishery for Atlantic tunas, including daily retention limits for BFT measuring 27 inches (68.5 cm) to less than 73 inches and any further Angling category adjustments, is available at hmspermits.noaa.gov or by calling (978) 281-9260. HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. Anglers are also reminded that all BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/outreach-and-education/careful-catch-and-release-brochure.

HMS Charter/Headboat and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting App.

Classification

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The closure of the northern area Angling category trophy fishery is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the northern area trophy fishery subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260 and on hmspermits.noaa.gov.

These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the northern area trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT occur. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority:

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

Dated: July 23, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-16038 Filed 7-24-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
83 145 Friday, July 27, 2018 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0689; Product Identifier 2018-CE-016-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Models G-IV and GIV-X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of disbonding and surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead. This proposed AD would require inspections of the forward and aft surfaces of the pressure bulkhead composite panels for damage and repair of any damage found. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

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

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

Hand Delivery: 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

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-2018-0689; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5547; fax: (404) 474-5605; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2018-0689; Product Identifier 2018-CE-016-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

Discussion

We received reports of disbonding and accompanying surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead on Gulfstream Model G-IV airplanes. Gulfstream Model GIV-X airplanes have the same type design. During scheduled maintenance, areas with disbonding and accompanying surface cracks were found. Operational pressure loads by-passing the disbonded facesheet caused wrinkling or compression failure and led to the surface cracking. This condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure.

Airplanes maintained under Gulfstream's Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance program do not have a scheduled tap test inspection of the aft pressure bulkhead. Model G-IV airplanes with a serial number (S/N) 1400 through 1535, and Model GIV-X airplanes with a S/N 4001 through 4004 adopted the MSG-3 maintenance program in production. Airplanes produced earlier may change to the MSG-3 program by following the instructions in Aircraft Service Change (ASC) No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G350 Customer Bulletin Number 198; Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 243; Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin Number 198; and Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 243; all dated January 25, 2018. For the applicable airplanes, the service information describes procedures for inspecting the composite panels of the forward and aft pressure bulkhead for damage and repairing any damage found. 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 also reviewed ASC No. 416A, dated September 29, 2000, which contains instructions for changing the maintenance program for Model G-IV airplanes from the airplane's existing program to the MSG-3 maintenance program.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 709 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 18 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,530 Not applicable $1,530 $1,084,770

    The extent of damage found during the proposed inspection may vary from airplane to airplane. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need repairs or the cost of such repairs for each airplane.

    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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0689; Product Identifier 2018-CE-016-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 10, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation airplanes, certificated in any category:

    (1) Model G-IV: Serial numbers (S/Ns) 1000 through 1399 that are maintained in accordance with the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance program by complying with Aircraft Service Change (ASC) 416A; and S/Ns 1400 through 1535.

    (2) Model GIV-X: S/Ns 4001 through 4004.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    Model G-IV airplanes are also referred to by the marketing designations G300 and G400. Model GIV-X airplanes are also referred to by the marketing designations G350 and G450.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of disbonding and surface cracking of the composite aft pressure bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and address damage of the composite forward and aft pressure bulkhead. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the bulkhead and loss of cabin pressure.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, visually and tap inspect the forward and aft surfaces of the pressure bulkhead composite panels following the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information listed in paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD, as applicable to your model airplane.

    (1) Gulfstream G300 Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018;

    (2) Gulfstream G350 Customer Bulletin Number 198, dated January 25, 2018;

    (3) Gulfstream G400 Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018;

    (4) Gulfstream G450 Customer Bulletin Number 198, dated January 25, 2018;

    (5) Gulfstream IV Customer Bulletin Number 243, dated January 25, 2018.

    (h) Repairs

    If any damage is found during the inspections required by this AD, before further flight, replace or repair the pressure bulkhead composite panels in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

    (i) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit may be issued per 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a facility to perform the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD. If damage is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, a special flight permit may be issued per 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location for repair, provided the aircraft is unpressurized.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta 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 (k)(1) of this AD.

    (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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(3)(i) and (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. 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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact William O. Herderich, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5547; fax: (404) 474-5605; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206; telephone: (800) 810-4853; fax 912-965-3520; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 20, 2018. Pat Mullen, Aircraft Certification Service, Acting Deputy Director, Policy & Innovation Division, AIR-601.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15964 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0370; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Wooster, OH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2018-0370; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0370/Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wayne County Airport, Wooster, OH, by removing the extension to the east associated with the Smith non-directional radio beacon. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Exclusionary language would be removed as it is no longer required. Also, the name of the city associated with the airport in the airspace description would be removed to comply with a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.

    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL OH E5 Wooster, OH [Amended] Wayne County Airport, OH (Lat. 40°52′29″ N, long. 81°53′18″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Wayne County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 16, 2018. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16012 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter II [Docket ID ED-2018-OII-0062] RIN 1855-AA14 Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program; Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

    SUMMARY:

    The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO grants) under the Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.282M. The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and later years. We take this action to support the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools by charter management organizations (CMOs) throughout the Nation, particularly those that serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students,1 such as students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, and students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities.

    1 Throughout this document, terms for which we are proposing definitions are denoted by initial capitals.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Help.”

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments, address them to Allison Holte, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5W106, Washington, DC 20202-5970.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Holte, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5W106, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone: (202) 205-7726. Email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CMO grants. The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for future competitions, following publication of a notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Federal Register. We take this action in order to support the effective and efficient use of CSP funds in the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools throughout the Nation, particularly those that serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, such as students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, and students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities.

    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes this regulatory action to achieve two main goals.

    First, we seek to continue to use funds under this program to support high-quality applications from highly qualified applicants. To that end, this document includes proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that would encourage or require applicants to describe, for example: Past successes working with Academically Poor-performing Public Schools; experience operating or managing multiple charter schools; plans to expand their reach into new and diverse communities; logical connections between their proposed projects and intended outcomes for the students they propose to serve; and plans to evaluate the extent to which their proposed projects, if funded, yield intended outcomes.

    Second, these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are designed to increase the likelihood that CMO grants support expanded high-quality educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students who are Individuals from Low-income Families, children with disabilities, and English learners, as well as students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, such as students who are Indians and students in Rural Communities. Specifically, we propose priorities for applicants that would: Replicate or expand high-quality charter schools with an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds, and maintaining racially and socially diverse student bodies; demonstrate that a meaningful proportion of the students served by the applicant are Individuals from Low-income Families; and replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that serve high school students, students in Rural Communities, or students who are Indians. Further, we propose requirements for CMO applicants to describe how the schools they intend to replicate or expand would recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students and support such students in mastering State academic standards.

    In addition to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we include in an Appendix the priorities, key requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), and Federal regulations that are relevant to the CMO program and to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in the Appendix are included for reference.

    Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe would be minimal. While this action would impose cost-bearing requirements on participating CMOs, we expect that CMO applicants would include requests for funds to cover such costs in their proposed project budgets. We believe this regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department awards CSP grants to CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses.

    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of this program.

    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4W228, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Purpose of Program: The major purposes of the CSP are to: Expand opportunities for all students, particularly students facing educational disadvantages and students who traditionally have been underserved by charter schools, to attend high-quality charter schools and meet challenging State academic standards; provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of public charter schools; increase the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the United States; evaluate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, families, and communities; share best practices between charter schools and other public schools; encourage States to provide facilities support to charter schools; and support efforts to strengthen the charter school authorizing process. Through the CMO grant program, the Department provides funds to CMOs on a competitive basis to enable them to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools. More specifically, grant funds may be used to expand the enrollment of one or more existing high-quality charter schools, or to open one or more high-quality charter schools by replicating an existing high-quality charter school model.

    Program Authority:

    Section 4305(b) of the ESEA.

    Proposed Priorities:

    This document contains seven proposed priorities.

    Proposed Priority 1—Promoting Diversity.

    Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under the CMO grant program for eligible entities that plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies. The proposed priority is based on the statutory priority, but would specify that the schools must have an intentional focus on racial and socioeconomic diversity. Accordingly, the proposed priority would help ensure that the Department targets for funding those CMOs taking active steps to promote racial and economic diversity in their schools, which we believe is consistent with the intent of the statutory priority.

    A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 notice inviting applications for this program (82 FR 4322) (FY 2017 NIA).

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools that have an intentional focus on recruiting students from racially and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds and maintaining racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies.

    Proposed Priority 2—School Improvement through Restart Efforts.

    Background: The CSP authorizing statute includes a priority under the CMO grant program for eligible entities that demonstrate success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA. States must identify schools for comprehensive support and improvement at the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. This proposed priority incorporates the statutory priority but, in order to meet the priority, the applicant also would be required to use CMO grant funds to support school improvement efforts by restarting an Academically Poor-performing Public School. We believe that the restart model (i.e., reopening a low-performing traditional public school under the management of a charter school developer or CMO, or reopening a low-performing public charter school under the management of a different charter school developer or CMO) holds promise as a school improvement strategy, but data suggest that it has been under-utilized thus far.2 Accordingly, the proposed priority is intended to help increase the frequency of implementation of the restart model. The proposed priority also would allow applicants to demonstrate past success through work with persistently-lowest achieving schools or priority schools (i.e., schools identified for interventions under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised “ESEA flexibility,” respectively, under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

    2 Hurlburt, S., Therriault, S.B., and Le Floch, K.C. (2012). School Improvement Grants: Analyses of State Applications and Eligible and Awarded Schools (NCEE 2012-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    In future CMO competitions that include this priority, we would encourage applicants to review CSP technical assistance materials pertaining to how an applicant may design an admissions lottery for an Academically Poor-performing Public School that the applicant is proposing to restart. Under the most recent version of the CSP nonregulatory guidance, for example, a charter school receiving CSP funds could, if permissible under applicable State law, exempt from its lottery students who are enrolled in the Academically Poor-performing Public School at the time it is restarted.

    A similar priority was included as a competitive preference priority in the FY 2017 NIA.

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, the Secretary considers the extent to which applications—

    (a) Demonstrate past success working with one or more Academically Poor-performing Public Schools or schools that previously were designated as persistently lowest-achieving schools or priority schools under the former School Improvement Grant program or in States that exercised ESEA flexibility, respectively, under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB; and

    (b) Propose to use grant funds under this program to restart one or more Academically Poor-performing Public Schools as charter schools during the project period by—

    (i) Replicating one or more high-quality charter schools based on a successful charter school model for which the applicant has provided evidence of success; and

    (ii) Targeting a demographically similar student population in the replicated charter schools as was served by the Academically Poor-performing Public Schools.

    Proposed Priority 3—High School Students.

    Background: Section 4305(b)(5)(C) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to give priority to applicants that propose to expand or replicate high-quality charter schools that serve high school students. In addition, section 4310(2)(M) of the ESEA authorizes charter schools that serve postsecondary students to receive CSP funds. The proposed priority incorporates the language of the statutory priority but, in order to meet the priority, applicants also would be required to replicate or expand charter high schools that offer programs and activities designed to prepare high school students for enrollment in a two- or four-year institution of higher education and, drawing from the authority provided in section 4310(2)(M), support such students after high school graduation in persisting in college and attaining degrees. The Department believes the proposed priority would complement broader efforts to promote a culture of lifelong learning and increase postsecondary participation, attendance, persistence, and degree attainment among our Nation's high school graduates.

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to—

    (i) Expand or replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high school students;

    (ii) Prepare students in those schools for enrollment in a two- or four-year institution of higher education through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, accelerated learning programs (including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and programs, dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and early college high schools), college counseling, career counseling, internships, work-based learning programs (such as apprenticeships), assisting students in the college admissions and financial aid application processes, and preparing students to take standardized college admissions tests;

    (iii) Provide support for students who graduate from those schools and enroll in a two- or four-year institution of higher education in persisting in, and attaining a degree from, such institutions, through programs and activities such as, but not limited to, mentorships, ongoing assistance with the financial aid application process, and establishing or strengthening peer support systems for such students attending the same institution; and

    (iv) Propose one or more project-specific performance measures, including aligned leading indicators or other interim milestones, that will provide valid and reliable information about the applicant's progress in preparing students for enrolling in an institution of higher education and in supporting those students in persisting in and attaining a degree from such institutions. An applicant addressing this priority and receiving a grant under this program must provide data that are responsive to the measure(s), including performance targets, in its annual performance reports to the Department.

    Proposed Priority 4—Low-Income Demographic.

    Background: The proposed priority is for applicants with experience serving concentrations of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families and is intended to support efforts to increase the number of high-quality educational options available to such students, particularly in the Nation's high-poverty areas. We propose three subparts to this proposed priority, each of which would require that the schools the applicant operates or manages serve a specific minimum percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families over the course of the CMO grant project period. The Secretary would have flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this priority in a given competition. We believe such flexibility is necessary to enable the Secretary to accommodate the range of eligible applicants and schools that may need support in a given year. The Department has included a similar priority in prior CMO competitions.

    The Department expects that the charter schools proposed to be replicated or expanded by an applicant meeting this proposed priority would serve, for the duration of the grant period, a percentage of students who are Individuals from Low-income Families that is comparable to the minimum percentage of such students established under the priority for a given year.

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate one of the following—

    (i) That at least 40 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families;

    (ii) That at least 50 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families; or

    (iii) That at least 60 percent of the students across all of the charter schools the applicant operates or manages are Individuals from Low-income Families.

    Proposed Priority 5—Number of Charter Schools Operated or Managed by the Eligible Applicant.

    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to distinguish applicants based on the number of charter schools they currently operate or manage. We propose three subparts for this priority, each of which would require that the applicant currently operate or manage a different number of schools. The Secretary would have the flexibility to choose one or more of the subparts of this priority in a given competition. This priority would give the Department flexibility to respond to changing funding needs in the charter school sector by, for example, targeting support toward smaller CMOs (i.e., CMOs that currently operate or manage no more than five charter schools) as they begin to expand, or toward larger, more established CMOs that seek to serve new communities. In addition, given that the CSP statute, as reauthorized under the ESEA, now also allows State entities to award subgrants for the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools, this priority would enable the Department to focus its grant-making, as appropriate, based on new and evolving support for the replication and expansion of charter schools at the State level.

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must demonstrate one of the following—

    (i) That they currently operate or manage two to five charter schools;

    (ii) That they currently operate or manage six to 20 charter schools; or

    (iii) That they currently operate or manage 21 or more charter schools.

    Proposed Priority 6—Geographic Location of Charter Schools Proposed to Be Replicated or Expanded.

    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to provide incentives for applicants to propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities. There is too often a relative dearth of high-quality educational options for students in Rural Communities, and our experience implementing this and other discretionary grant programs has taught us that these communities often face unique obstacles to educational success. This proposed priority would allow the Department flexibility to provide an incentive for applicants proposing to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in Rural Communities, including by evaluating such applications separately from applications proposing to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools in non-rural communities, thereby allowing for an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Accordingly, this proposed priority would help ensure that students in Rural Communities have access to a range of educational options similar to that available to their peers in suburban and urban areas, and from which parents can select an option that best meets their child's needs.

    Proposed Priority: Under this priority, applicants must propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools in a:

    (i) Rural Community; or

    (ii) Community that is not a Rural Community.

    Proposed Priority 7—Replicating or Expanding High-quality Charter Schools to Serve Students who are Indians.

    Background: We propose this priority to enable the Department to provide an incentive for applicants that propose to replicate or expand high-quality charter schools by conducting targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are Indians. We propose to define “High Proportion” in a way that would enable the Department to determine whether a replicated or expanded charter school serves a High Proportion of students who are Indians on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the unique factual circumstances of that school.

    In order to meet the priority, an applicant would be required to provide a letter of support from one or more Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school, and to demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations in a timely, active, and ongoing manner. In addition, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the replicated or expanded charter school's mission and educational program will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, and that such school's governing board will have a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the charter school.

    Priority: Under this priority, applicants must—

    (i) Propose to replicate or expand one or more high-quality charter schools that—

    (I) Utilize targeted outreach and recruitment in order to serve a High Proportion of students who are Indians;

    (II) Have a mission and academic program that will address the unique educational needs of students who are Indians, including through the use of instructional programs and teaching methods that reflect and preserve Indian language, culture, and history; and

    (III) Have a governing board with a substantial percentage of members who are members of Indian Tribes or Indian Organizations located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school;

    (ii) Submit a letter of support, from at least one Indian Tribe or Indian Organization located within the area to be served by the replicated or expanded charter school; and

    (iii) Demonstrate a commitment to meaningfully collaborate with the Indian Tribe(s) or Indian Organization(s) from which the applicant has received a letter of support in a timely, active, and ongoing manner with respect to the development and implementation of the educational program at the charter school.

    Types of Priorities:

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

    Proposed Requirements:

    Background: The ESEA includes several requirements for applications submitted under this program. We have listed the statutory application requirements in the Appendix for reference. In addition to the specific statutory requirements, section 4305(c) of the ESEA requires grants awarded to CMOs to have the “same terms and conditions as grants awarded to State entities under section 4303.” We propose some requirements for this program that apply to State entity grants under section 4303(f). We have included in the Appendix to this document other requirements in section 4303(f) that we intend to apply to CMO grants but that do not require rulemaking. In applying the latter requirements to CMO grants, references to “State entity” and “State entity program” must be read as references to “charter management organization” and “grant award,” respectively.

    In general, the Department believes, based on past experience administering this program, that these proposed requirements are necessary for the proper consideration of applications for CMO grants and would increase the likelihood of success of applicants' proposed projects, thereby contributing to the efficient use of taxpayer dollars in expanding the high-quality educational options available to our Nation's students. In accordance with section 4305(c), these proposed requirements would not preclude the Department from applying other terms and conditions applicable to State entity grants to CMO grants in FY 2019 or future years.

    Proposed Requirements: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following requirements for this program. We would apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Applicants for funds under this program must meet one or more of the following requirements—

    (a) Demonstrate that the applicant currently operates or manages more than one charter school. For purposes of this program, multiple charter schools are considered to be separate schools if each school—

    (i) Meets each element of the definition of “charter school” under section 4310(2) of the ESEA; and

    (ii) Is treated as a separate school by its authorized public chartering agency and the State in which the charter school is located, including for purposes of accountability and reporting under title I, part A of the ESEA.

    (b) Provide information regarding any compliance issues and how they were resolved, for any charter schools operated or managed by the applicant that have—

    (i) Closed;

    (ii) Had their charter(s) revoked due to problems with statutory or regulatory compliance, including compliance with sections 4310(2)(G) and (J) of the ESEA; or

    (iii) Had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.

    (c) Provide a complete logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) for the grant project. The logic model must include the applicant's objectives for replicating or expanding one or more high-quality charter schools with funding under this program, including the number of high-quality charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand.

    (d) If the applicant currently operates, or is proposing to replicate or expand, a single-sex charter school or coeducational charter school that provides a single-sex class or extracurricular activity (collectively referred to as a “single-sex educational program”), demonstrate that the existing or proposed single-sex educational program is in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.) (Title IX) and its implementing regulations, including 34 CFR 106.34.

    (e) Describe how the applicant currently operates or manages the high-quality charter schools for which it has presented evidence of success and how the proposed replicated or expanded charter schools will be operated or managed, including the legal relationship between the applicant and its schools. If a legal entity other than the applicant has entered or will enter into a performance contract with an authorized public chartering agency to operate one or more of the applicant's schools, the applicant must also describe its relationship with that entity.

    (f) Describe how the applicant will solicit and consider input from parents and other members of the community on the implementation and operation of each replicated or expanded charter school, including in the area of school governance.

    (g) Describe the lottery and enrollment procedures that will be used for each replicated or expanded charter school if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated, including how any proposed weighted lottery complies with section 4303(c)(3)(A) of the ESEA.

    (h) Describe how the applicant will ensure that all eligible students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in accordance with part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    (i) Describe how the proposed project will assist Educationally Disadvantaged Students in mastering challenging State academic standards.

    (j) Provide a budget narrative, aligned with the activities, target grant project outputs, and outcomes described in the logic model, that outlines how Federal grant funds will be expended to carry out planned activities.

    (k) Provide the applicant's most recent independently audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

    (l) Describe the applicant's policies and procedures to assist students enrolled in a charter school that closes or loses its charter to attend other high-quality schools.

    (m) Provide—

    (A) A request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the eligible entity believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter schools to be replicated or expanded; and

    (B) A description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived, or otherwise not apply to such schools.

    Proposed Definitions:

    The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Background: In order to ensure common understanding of the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, we propose nine definitions of terms that are critical to the policy and statutory purposes of the CMO grant program. We propose these definitions in order to clarify expectations for eligible entities applying for CMO grants and to ensure that the review process for applications for CMO grants remains as transparent as possible. The proposed definition for Educationally Disadvantaged Students is based on section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian is taken from section 6151(3) of the ESEA, the proposed definition for Indian Organization is from 34 CFR 263.3, and the proposed definition for Indian Tribe is from section 6132(b)(2) of the ESEA.

    Academically poor-performing public school means:

    (a) A school identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA; or

    (b) A public school otherwise identified by the State, or in the case of a charter school, its authorized public chartering agency, as similarly academically poor-performing.

    Educationally disadvantaged student means a student in one or more of the categories described in section 1115(c)(2) of the ESEA, which include children who are economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, migrant students, English learners, neglected or delinquent students, homeless students, and students who are in foster care.

    High proportion, when used to refer to students who are Indians, is a fact-specific, case-by-case determination based upon the unique circumstances of a particular charter school or proposed charter school. The Secretary considers “high proportion” to include a majority of students who are Indians. In addition, the Secretary may determine that less than a majority of students who are Indians constitutes a “high proportion” based on the unique circumstances of a particular charter school or proposed charter school, as described in the application for funds.

    Indian means an individual who is—

    (A) A member of an Indian tribe or band, as membership is defined by the tribe or band, including—

    (i) Any tribe or band terminated since 1940; and

    (ii) Any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the tribe or band resides;

    (B) A descendant, in the first or second degree, of an individual described in subparagraph (A);

    (C) Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;

    (D) An Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or

    (E) A member of an organized Indian group that received a grant under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as in effect the day preceding the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.

    Indian organization means an organization that—

    (1) Is legally established—

    (i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State or tribal law; and

    (ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;

    (2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;

    (3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;

    (4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction or by charter of the governing body of that reservation;

    (5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and

    (6) Is not an agency of State or local government.

    Indian tribe means a federally-recognized or a State-recognized tribe.

    Individual from a low-income family means an individual who is determined by a State educational agency or local educational agency to be a child from a low-income family on the basis of (a) data used by the Secretary to determine allocations under section 1124 of the ESEA, (b) data on children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, (c) data on children in families receiving assistance under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, (d) data on children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, or (e) an alternate method that combines or extrapolates from the data in items (a) through (d) of this definition.

    Rural community means a community that is served by a local educational agency that is eligible to apply for funds under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B of the ESEA. Applicants may determine whether a particular local educational agency is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the following Department websites. For the SRSA program: www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible16/index.html. For the RLIS program: www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html.

    Proposed Selection Criteria:

    Background: The ESEA includes three selection criteria for the CMO grant program, which are included in the Appendix for reference. We propose a criterion that would expand upon those included in the authorizing statute, as well as three other criteria. Based on past experience implementing the CMO grant program, we believe that these additional criteria will be valuable tools for peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of CMO applications in future years.

    Specifically, proposed selection criterion (a) “Quality of the Eligible Applicant” derives from the ESEA selection criteria for this program, under which the Department considers the degree to which an applicant has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement and whether charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have been closed or have encountered statutory or regulatory compliance issues. The proposed criterion would expand on the statutory criteria by examining the extent to which academic achievement results for Educationally Disadvantaged Students attending an applicant's schools have exceeded State averages for such students in the State. Further, we propose to incorporate into this criterion language from the ESEA definition of “high-quality charter school” that would enable reviewers also to consider any significant issues that an applicant's charter schools have encountered in the areas of financial or operational management and student safety. The Department believes that these proposed selection factors would align with the intent of the authorizing statute and would bolster our ability to select high-quality CMO applicants.

    Proposed selection criterion (b) “Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students” would focus on the contribution the proposed project would make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. This proposed criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each proposed project aligns with a major statutory purpose of the CSP: To expand opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students. This criterion would encourage applicants to discuss (1) their current capacity to serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, and to compare that capacity to that of surrounding public schools, and (2) their plans for replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools that will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

    Proposed selection criterion (c) “Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project” would examine how applicants would evaluate their proposed projects. It is crucial that the Department invest its limited discretionary funding in projects that are based on a reasoned theory and that are likely to yield information that can be used to continue to expand high-quality educational options for students. This criterion would allow the Department to assess the extent to which each CMO applicant: Has based its proposed project on a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) that links the planned inputs and outputs to clearly defined intended outcomes of the project; will use objective performance measures to ensure that the project remains on track to meet stated objectives; and will be able to produce qualitative and quantitative data by the end of the grant period.

    Finally, proposed selection criterion (d) “Quality of the management plan and personnel” would allow applicants to highlight the management plan for their proposed project, the qualifications of key project personnel, and the potential for sustaining the charter schools included in the proposed project after the grant has expired. While similar selection factors exist in the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, our intent for this proposed selection criterion is to focus on the extent to which the applicant could demonstrate its specific experience with, and proposed management plan for, replicating or expanding high-quality charter schools. We believe, based on past experience implementing this program, that the proposed criterion is appropriate to ascertain the likelihood of an applicant's success.

    Proposed Selection Criteria: The Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes the following selection criteria for evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. In the NIA, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.

    The Secretary will select eligible entities to receive grants under this program on the basis of the quality of such applications, after taking into consideration one or more of the following selection criteria:

    (a) Quality of the eligible applicant. In determining the quality of the eligible applicant, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which the academic achievement results (including annual student performance on statewide assessments and annual student attendance and retention rates, and where applicable and available, student academic growth, high school graduation rates, college attendance rates, and college persistence rates) for Educationally Disadvantaged Students served by the charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have exceeded the average academic achievement results for such students in the State.

    (ii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have closed; have had a charter revoked due to noncompliance with statutory or regulatory requirements; or have had their affiliation with the applicant revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation.

    (iii) The extent to which one or more charter schools operated or managed by the applicant have had any significant issues in the area of financial or operational management or student safety or have otherwise experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to revocation of the school's charter.

    (b) Contribution in assisting Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

    The significance of the contribution the proposed project will make in expanding educational opportunities for Educationally Disadvantaged Students and enabling those students to meet challenging State academic standards. In determining the significance of the contribution the proposed project will make, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

    (i) The extent to which charter schools currently operated or managed by the applicant serve Educationally Disadvantaged Students, including students with disabilities and English learners, at rates comparable to surrounding public schools or, in the case of virtual charter schools, at rates comparable to public schools in the State.

    (ii) The quality of the plan to ensure that the charter schools the applicant proposes to replicate or expand will recruit and enroll Educationally Disadvantaged Students.

    (c) Quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project.

    In determining the quality of the evaluation plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the proposed project, as articulated in the applicant's logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), and that will produce quantitative and qualitative data by the end of the grant period.

    (d) Quality of the management plan.

    In determining the quality of the applicant's management plan, the Secretary considers the ability of the applicant to sustain the operation of the replicated or expanded charter schools after the grant has ended, as demonstrated by the multi-year financial and operating model required under section 4305(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the ESEA.

    Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria:

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in a document in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria after considering public comments and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771 Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

    We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

    Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in this program is voluntary. While this action would impose some requirements on participating CMOs that are cost-bearing, the Department expects that applicants for this program would include in their proposed budgets a request for funds to support compliance with such cost-bearing requirements. Therefore, costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.

    This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for CSP grants the CMOs that are most capable of expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to our Nation's students, consistent with a major purpose of the CSP as described in section 4301(3) of the ESEA. The Department believes that these benefits to the Federal government and to SEAs outweigh the costs associated with this action.

    Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    The Department believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are needed to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the proposed selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the selection criteria authorized for CSP grants to CMOs in section 4305(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, the criteria would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past performance with respect to the operation of high-quality charter schools or with respect to compliance issues that the applicant has encountered.

    We note that several of the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are based on priorities, requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this program.

    Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to SEAs.

    Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures [In millions] Category Transfers Annualized Monetized Transfers $90. From Whom To Whom? From the Federal Government to CMOs.

    Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and that imposes total costs greater than zero, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For Fiscal Year 2018, any new incremental costs associated with a new regulation must be fully offset by the elimination of existing costs through deregulatory actions. However, Executive Order 13771 does not apply to “transfer rules” that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries, such as those regarding discretionary grant programs. These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would be utilized in connection with a discretionary grant program and, therefore, Executive Order 13771 is not applicable.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria contain information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1894-0006; the proposed priorities, requirements, and selection criteria do not affect the currently approved data collection.

    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

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

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

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

    Dated: July 23, 2018. James C. Blew, Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement. Appendix

    This Appendix includes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria from sections 4303(f), 4305(b), 4305(c), and 8101 of the ESEA and 34 CFR 77.1 for reference.

    Priorities: The following priorities are from section 4305(b)(5) of the ESEA:

    (5) Priority.—In awarding grants under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that—

    (A) Plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies;

    (B) Demonstrate success in working with schools identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i);

    (C) Propose to use funds—

    (i) To expand high-quality charter schools to serve high school students; or

    (ii) To replicate high-quality charter schools to serve high school students; or

    (D) Propose to operate or manage high-quality charter schools that focus on dropout recovery and academic re-entry.

    Requirements and Assurances: The following requirements and assurances are from sections 4303(f) and 4305(b)(3), respectively, of the ESEA. In accordance with section 4305(c), we include in this Appendix key statutory provisions in section 4303(f) that apply to State entity grants that we intend to apply to CMO grants. In applying the requirements in section 4303(f) to CMO grants, references to “State entity” and “State entity program” must be read as references to “charter management organization” and “grant award,” respectively.

    4303(f) Applications.—A State entity desiring to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. The application shall include the following:

    (1) Description of program.—A description of the State entity's objectives in running a quality charter school program under this section and how the program will be carried out, including—

    (A) A description of how the State entity will—

    (x) Ensure that charter schools receiving funds under the State entity's program meet the educational needs of their students, including children with disabilities and English learners; and

    (xiii)(E) A description of how the State entity will ensure that each charter school receiving funds under the State entity's program has considered and planned for the transportation needs of the school's students.

    (2) Assurances.—Assurances that—

    (B) The State entity will support charter schools in meeting the educational needs of their students, as described in paragraph (1)(A)(x); and

    (G) The State entity will ensure that each charter school receiving funds under the State entity's program makes publicly available, consistent with the dissemination requirements of the annual State report card under section 1111(h), including on the website of the school, information to help parents make informed decisions about the education options available to their children, including—

    (i) Information on the educational program;

    (ii) Student support services;

    (iii) Parent contract requirements (as applicable), including any financial obligations or fees;

    (iv) Enrollment criteria (as applicable); and

    (v) Annual performance and enrollment data for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such disaggregation of performance and enrollment data shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student.

    4305(b)(3) Application Requirements.—An eligible entity desiring to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. The application shall include the following:

    (A) Existing Charter School Data.—For each charter school currently operated or managed by the eligible entity—

    (i) Student assessment results for all students and for each subgroup of students described in section 1111(c)(2);

    (ii) Attendance and student retention rates for the most recently completed school year and, if applicable, the most recent available four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; and

    (iii) Information on any significant compliance and management issues encountered within the last three school years by any school operated or managed by the eligible entity, including in the areas of student safety and finance.

    (B) Descriptions.—A description of—

    (i) The eligible entity's objectives for implementing a high-quality charter school program with funding under this subsection, including a description of the proposed number of high-quality charter schools the eligible entity proposes to open as a result of the replication of a high-quality charter school or to expand with funding under this subsection;

    (ii) The educational program that the eligible entity will implement in such charter schools, including—

    (I) Information on how the program will enable all students to meet the challenging State academic standards;

    (II) The grade levels or ages of students who will be served; and

    (III) The instructional practices that will be used;

    (iii) How the operation of such charter schools will be sustained after the grant under this subsection has ended, which shall include a multi-year financial and operating model for the eligible entity;

    (iv) How the eligible entity will ensure that such charter schools will recruit and enroll students, including children with disabilities, English learners, and other educationally disadvantaged students; and

    (v) Any request and justification for any waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory requirements that the eligible entity believes are necessary for the successful operation of such charter schools.

    (C) Assurance.—An assurance that the eligible entity has sufficient procedures in effect to ensure timely closure of low-performing or financially mismanaged charter schools and clear plans and procedures in effect for the students in such schools to attend other high-quality schools.

    Definitions: The following definitions are from the ESEA or Department regulations. The specific source of each definition is noted in parentheses following each definition.

    Authorized public chartering agency means a State educational agency, local educational agency, or other public entity that has the authority pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a charter school. (Section 4310(1) of the ESEA)

    Charter school means a public school that—

    (A) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this paragraph;

    (B) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;

    (C) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;

    (D) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;

    (E) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;

    (F) Does not charge tuition;

    (G) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly referred to as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974”), and part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

    (H) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—

    (i) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with section 4303(c)(3)(A), if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or

    (ii) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in clause (i);

    (I) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;

    (J) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;

    (K) Operates in accordance with State law;

    (L) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorizing public chartering agency and the charter school; and

    (M) May serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students. (Section 4310(2) of the ESEA)

    Charter management organization means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight. (Section 4310(3) of the ESEA)

    Developer means an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out. (Section 4310(5) of the ESEA)

    Dual or concurrent enrollment program means a program offered by a partnership between at least one institution of higher education and at least one local educational agency through which a secondary school student who has not graduated from high school with a regular high school diploma is able to enroll in one or more postsecondary courses and earn postsecondary credit that—

    (A) Is transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership; and

    (B) Applies toward completion of a degree or recognized educational credential as described in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). (Section 8101(15) of the ESEA)

    Early college high school means a partnership between at least one local educational agency and at least one institution of higher education that allows participants to simultaneously complete requirements toward earning a regular high school diploma and earn not less than 12 credits that are transferable to the institutions of higher education in the partnership as part of an organized course of study toward a postsecondary degree or credential at no cost to the participant or participant's family. (Section 8101(17) of the ESEA)

    Expand, when used with respect to a high-quality charter school, means to significantly increase enrollment or add one or more grades to the high-quality charter school. (Section 4310(7) of the ESEA)

    High-quality charter school means a charter school that—

    (a) Shows evidence of strong academic results, which may include strong student academic growth, as determined by a State;

    (b) Has no significant issues in the areas of student safety, financial and operational management, or statutory or regulatory compliance;

    (c) Has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for all students served by the charter school; and

    (d) Has demonstrated success in increasing student academic achievement, including graduation rates where applicable, for each of the subgroups of students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2), except that such demonstration is not required in a case in which the number of students in a group is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student. (Section 4310(8) of the ESEA)

    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

    Replicate, when used with respect to a high-quality charter school, means to open a new charter school, or a new campus of a high-quality charter school, based on the educational model of an existing high-quality charter school, under an existing charter or an additional charter, if permitted or required by State law. (Section 4310(9) of the ESEA)

    Selection Criteria: The following selection criteria are from section 4305(b)(4) of the ESEA.

    (4) Selection Criteria.—The Secretary shall select eligible entities to receive grants under this subsection, on the basis of the quality of the applications submitted under paragraph (3), after taking into consideration such factors as—

    (A) The degree to which the eligible entity has demonstrated success in increasing academic achievement for all students and for each of the subgroups of students described in section 1111(c)(2) attending the charter schools the eligible entity operates or manages;

    (B) A determination that the eligible entity has not operated or managed a significant proportion of charter schools that—

    (i) Have been closed;

    (ii) Have had the school's charter revoked due to problems with statutory or regulatory compliance; or

    (iii) Have had the school's affiliation with the eligible entity revoked or terminated, including through voluntary disaffiliation; and

    (C) A determination that the eligible entity has not experienced significant problems with statutory or regulatory compliance that could lead to the revocation of a school's charter.

    Terms and Conditions: The following terms and conditions are from section 4305(c) of the ESEA.

    (c) Terms and Conditions.—Except as otherwise provided, grants awarded under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall have the same terms and conditions as grants awarded to State entities under section 4303.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15977 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084; FRL-9981-38—Region 6] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site (Site) located in Greenville, Texas, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084, by mail to Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-7167, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of Old Esco Manufacturing Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Arturo Blanco, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16121 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9981-25—Region 5] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notification of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Former Process Area (FPA) of the Peters Cartridge Factory Superfund Site (Peters Cartridge Site) located in Kings Mills, Ohio from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Ohio, through the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), have determined that all appropriate response actions at the FPA under CERCLA, other than maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, by mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the FPA of the Peters Cartridge Site simultaneously with this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated July 17, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16122 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 36 [WC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 18-99] Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission proposes to extend the freeze of jurisdictional separations category relationships and cost allocation factors for 15 years. The Commission also proposes to provide rate-of-return carriers who elected to freeze their category relationships a time limited opportunity to opt out of that freeze. The Commission invites comment on these proposals, on whether it should modify any other aspects of the separations freeze, and on whether it should alter the scope of its referral to the Federal State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board) regarding comprehensive separations reform.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before August 27, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before September 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by WC Docket 80-286, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: 888-835-5322.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marvin Sacks, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-2017 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), FCC 18-99, released July 18, 2018. A full-text version of the document can be obtained at the following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-extend-jurisdictional-separations-freeze.

    I. Background A. The Jurisdictional Separations Process

    1. Rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) use their networks and other resources to provide both interstate and intrastate services. To help prevent the recovery of the same costs from both the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions, the Commission's rules require that rate-of-return incumbent LECs divide their costs and revenues between the respective jurisdictions. These “jurisdictional separations” rules were designed to ensure that rate-of-return incumbent LECs apportion the costs of their regulated services between the interstate or intrastate jurisdictions in a manner that reflects the relative use of their networks to provide interstate or intrastate services.

    2. Jurisdictional separations is the third step in a four-step regulatory process. First, a rate-of-return carrier records its costs and revenues in various accounts using the Uniform System of Accounts prescribed by the Commission's part 32 rules. Second, the carrier divides the costs and revenues in these accounts between regulated and nonregulated activities in accordance with the Commission's part 64 rules, a step that helps ensure that the costs of nonregulated activities will not be recovered through regulated interstate rates. Third, the carrier separates the regulated costs and revenues between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions using the Commission's part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. Finally, the carrier apportions the interstate regulated costs among the interexchange services and the rate elements that form the cost basis for its exchange access tariffs. Carriers subject to rate-of-return regulation perform this apportionment in accordance with the Commission's part 69 rules.

    3. Rate-of-return incumbent LECs perform annual cost studies that include jurisdictional separations. The jurisdictional separations analysis begins with the categorization of the incumbent LEC's regulated costs and expenses, requiring the incumbent LEC to assign the regulated costs and revenues recorded in its part 32 accounts to various investment, expense, and revenue categories. The incumbent LEC then allocates the costs or revenues in each category between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions. Amounts in categories that are used exclusively for interstate or intrastate communications are directly assigned to the appropriate jurisdiction. Amounts in categories that support both interstate and intrastate services are allocated between the jurisdictions using relative use factors or fixed allocators.

    4. The vast majority of the jurisdictional separations rules were last updated more than 30 years ago and reflect the mix of services and the marketplace circumstances of that time. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding to comprehensively reform those rules to ensure that they reflected the statutory, technological, and marketplace changes that had affected the telecommunications industry. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission, pursuant to a Joint Board recommendation, froze the part 36 separations rules for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first (“the separations freeze”).

    5. More specifically, the Commission adopted a freeze of all part 36 category relationships and allocation factors for price cap carriers, and a freeze of all allocation factors for rate-of-return carriers. It also gave rate-of-return carriers a one-time option to freeze their category relationships, enabling each of these carriers to determine whether such a freeze would be beneficial “based on its own circumstances and investment plans.” The election deadline to opt into the category relationships freeze was June 30, 2001.

    6. In adopting the separations freeze, the Commission concluded that several issues, including the separations treatment of internet traffic, should be addressed in the context of comprehensive separations reform. The Commission further concluded that the freeze would provide stability and regulatory certainty for incumbent LECs by minimizing any impacts on separations results that might occur due to circumstances not contemplated by the Commission's part 36 rules, such as growth in local competition and the adoption of new technologies. The Commission also found that a freeze of the separations process would reduce regulatory burdens on incumbent LECs during the transition from a regulated monopoly to a deregulated, competitive environment in the local telecommunications marketplace.

    7. The Commission has since granted price cap carriers forbearance from the part 36 jurisdictional separations rules. As a result, the separations freeze applies only to rate-of-return carriers, all of whom have frozen allocation factors. Those rate-of-return carriers that chose to freeze their category relationships in 2001 assign investment and expenses within their part 32 accounts to categories using their separations category relationships from 2000, and allocate their categorized costs between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions using their allocation factors from 2000. This use of “frozen” category relationships and allocation factors frees carriers from conducting separations studies for the duration of the freeze.

    B. Declining Applicability of Jurisdictional Separations Results

    8. Over the years, the Commission has undertaken initiatives that reduce the role a carrier's costs play in the regulation of rates and in the distribution of high-cost universal service support. Consequently, the significance of jurisdictional separations results has declined. The first of these initiatives was the application of price cap regulation to the largest local exchange carriers, a step that eventually severed the link between separations results and interstate rates for those carriers. Subsequently, as noted above, the Commission forbore from application of the jurisdictional separations rules to price cap incumbent LECs, leaving rate-of-return incumbent LECs as the only carriers required to comply with the separations rules. More recent Commission reforms have eliminated the need for cost data for large portions of rate-of-return carriers' operations as well. Specifically, in 2011, as part of comprehensive reform and modernization of the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems, the Commission adopted rate caps (including a transition to bill-and-keep for certain rate elements) for switched access services for rate-of-return carriers, thereby severing the relationship between cost and switched access rates. In addition, in 2016, the Commission gave rate-of-return carriers the option of receiving high-cost universal service support based on the Alternative-Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM). More than 200 carriers opted to receive A-CAM support, which eliminated the need for those carriers to perform cost studies that required jurisdictional separations to quantify the amount of high-cost support for their common line offerings.

    9. As a result of these reforms, rate-of-return carriers now use separations cost results only for the following limited purposes: (a) Establishing their business data services (special access) rates; (b) calculating interstate common line support for those carriers that have not elected A-CAM support; and (c) calculating subscriber line charge (SLC) levels for the minority of carriers whose SLCs are below the maximum level. The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) uses categorization results for calculating high-cost loop support, but without applying jurisdictional allocations. States also use separations results to determine the amount of intrastate universal service support and to calculate regulatory fees, and some states perform rate-of-return ratemaking using intrastate costs.

    10. The Commission expects that the use of jurisdictional separations will continue to decline. For example, earlier this year, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on migrating additional rate-of-return carriers to model-based support. In a more recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow A-CAM carriers to transition their business data services offerings from rate-of-return to incentive-based regulation.

    C. Procedural History

    11. The Commission has extended the separations freeze seven times, with the most recent extension set to expire on December 31, 2018. In adopting and extending the freeze, the Commission has reasoned that the freeze would stabilize and simplify the separations process while the Joint Board and the Commission continued to work on separations reform. In its most recent freeze extension order, the Commission also explained that an extension until December 31, 2018, would provide the Joint Board with sufficient time to consider what effects the Commission's most recent reforms to the high-cost universal service program and intercarrier compensation should have on the separations rules.

    12. Since the Commission initiated this proceeding in 1997, the Joint Board—comprised of both state and federal members—has been attempting to develop recommendations for comprehensive reform. In response to the Commission's initial referral, the State Members of the Joint Board filed a report identifying issues they believed should be addressed. Over the years, the State Members filed policy papers setting out options for reform, the Commission or the Joint Board sought comment, and the Joint Board held hearings and meetings to consider the various proposals. Nevertheless, despite the Commission's repeated extensions of the separations freeze to provide the Joint Board with additional time to issue a Recommended Decision, the Joint Board has not recommended comprehensive reforms.

    13. The Commission has twice waived the category relationships freeze to allow individual carriers to adjust the amounts assigned to separations categories to reflect network upgrades. In 2010, the Commission waived that freeze to allow Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., a tribally owned carrier that had upgraded its local loop plant in order to increase the telephone penetration rate in its extremely high-cost service territory, to increase the high-cost loop support it received from the Universal Service Fund (USF) consistent with prior waivers of other universal service rules for carriers serving tribal lands. In 2012, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) also waived the category relationships freeze to allow Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (Eastex), a rural cooperative that had upgraded its network with soft switches and fiber to improve its broadband services, to increase its settlements from the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (NECA) special access pool, reducing Eastex's reliance on the USF.

    II. Discussion

    14. The Commission views jurisdictional separations reform, and the question of whether to extend the separations freeze, in light of its ongoing efforts to transition from rate-of-return to incentive regulation and to eliminate or avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on carriers. After weighing the likely benefits of extending the freeze against the likely costs of allowing it to end on December 31, 2018, the Commission proposes to extend the separations freeze for 15 years and to provide a time-limited opportunity for carriers that elected the category relationships freeze to opt out of that freeze. The Commission invites comment on these proposals and on the proposed rule changes set forth in Appendix A. The Commission also invites comment on whether it should modify any other aspects of the separations freeze if it adopts the proposal to extend it.

    A. Further Extending the Separations Freeze

    15. Completion of comprehensive separations reform by the expiration of the freeze on December 31, 2018 is highly unlikely. Most fundamentally, the Commission would prefer not to move forward on separations reform without a Joint Board recommendation on an approach to such reform, and the Board is not close to reaching a recommendation. As Commissioner Michael O'Rielly, Chairman of the Joint Board, recently observed, “the viewpoints” within the Joint Board “are so vastly different on this complex issue that finding commonality is not going to [be] possible in the near term.” Moreover, even if the Joint Board were to offer a recommendation for the Commission's consideration, the Commission would then likely seek comment on that recommendation before issuing an order revising the separations rules. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Commission must choose between extending the separations freeze and allowing long-unused separations rules to take effect on January 1, 2019.

    16. The Commission has previously found that letting the freeze expire and allowing largely outmoded separations rules to be reinstated would impose significant burdens on rate-of-return carriers and create undue instability. In extending the freeze in 2017, the Commission explained that reinstating the separations rules would require substantial training and investment by rural incumbent LECs, and could cause significant disruptions in regulated rates, cost recovery, and other operating conditions. The Commission found that the “clear benefits that will result from granting a further extension” of the freeze outweighed any possible harms. It concluded that requiring carriers to reinstate their separations systems “would be unduly burdensome when there is a significant likelihood that there would be no lasting benefit to doing so.”

    17. The Commission finds its prior analysis compelling and, similarly, that the benefits of an additional extension of the freeze likely would far outweigh any potential harms. The Commission therefore proposes to extend the separations freeze and to direct rate-of-return incumbent LECs to continue to use the same frozen jurisdictional allocation factors. The Commission invites comment on this proposal and on the relative costs and benefits of continuing the separations freeze.

    18. In view of these circumstances, the Commission proposes to extend the freeze for 15 years and invites comment on this proposal. The Commission also invites comment on whether a shorter extension would be preferable. The Commission asks that commenters discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a long or short extension period, and provide specific reasons in support of their recommended timeframes. What effect, if any, would particular extension periods have on ratepayers? Is the Commission's choice of an extension period likely to distort rate levels? Commenters supporting relatively short extension periods should also take into account the time necessary for the Commission and the industry to implement any separations decisions and rule changes.

    19. In this regard, the Commission recognizes that the issues before the Joint Board are extremely complex, and the Federal and State members of the Joint Board have not issued a Recommended Decision on comprehensive separations reform in the two decades since the Commission originally proposed such reform. As such, how likely is it that the Joint Board will issue a Recommended Decision on comprehensive separations reform within a relatively short extension period? If consensus within that timeframe is unlikely, should the Commission adopt a relatively long extension? Or should the Commission permanently extend the separations freeze, as USTelecom suggests? Would a relatively long or permanent extension be inconsistent with section 201(b) of the Act's prohibition on unjust and unreasonable charges?

    20. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should change the scope of the issues referred to the Joint Board. In April 2017, the Joint Board issued a public notice seeking comment to refresh the record on issues related to comprehensive, permanent separations reform. Several commenters in response to that public notice recognized the steadily diminishing role of separations results in federal and state regulation, and argued that the Commission should not undertake comprehensive separations reform at the present time because it would be premature, disruptive, and counterproductive. In view of that opposition, should the Commission find that any separations reform in the foreseeable future should be narrowly targeted and change the scope of the issues referred to the Joint Board accordingly? If so, how should the Commission modify the referral to the Joint Board?

    B. Allowing Carriers That Elected the Category Relationships Freeze an Opportunity To Change Their Elections

    21. The Commission proposes to provide a one-time opportunity for carriers that opted to freeze their category relationships in 2001 to opt out of that freeze, so that they can categorize their costs based on current circumstances rather than their circumstances in 2000. Presently, rate-of-return carriers in approximately 45 study areas operate under the category relationships freeze. When the Commission granted rate-of-return carriers the opportunity to elect the category relationships freeze, it specified that the freeze would be an interim, “transitional measure” lasting no more than five years. But the freeze has now lasted 17 years, and carriers that elected it are prohibited from withdrawing from their elections. Many of these carriers have since invested in network upgrades or are considering future upgrades. As a result of the category relationships freeze, these carriers may be unable to recover the costs of those investments from the ratepayers that will benefit from those upgrades, or from the USF. Consequently, these carriers may lack incentives to improve service and deploy advanced technologies like broadband for their customers. The Commission therefore proposes and invites comment on allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze. What are the costs and benefits of this proposal?

    22. In the past, commenters have urged the Commission to allow carriers that elected the category relationships freeze to unfreeze those relationships. For example, ITTA points out that the Commission originally allowed rate-of-return carriers the flexibility to decide whether or not to freeze their category relationships because those carriers' size and investment patterns vary widely. ITTA argues that the Commission should provide these carriers with the flexibility to unfreeze their category relationships for similar reasons. ITTA explains that some carriers with frozen category relationships “will embrace the opportunity to more accurately allocate their investment,” while others “will find reinstating their separations systems unduly burdensome.” Moss Adams, NTCA, WTA, and USTelecom argue that unfreezing category relationships will allow carriers to assign costs in a manner that reflects how they offer services today and will enable carriers to take greater advantage of universal service funds that support broadband deployment. The Commission invites commenters to elaborate on why the Commission should allow carriers to unfreeze their category relationships. The Commission also seeks input from any commenters that oppose such action. The Commission seeks input on the costs and benefits of permitting carriers to unfreeze their category relationships—both from carriers that believe they may benefit from an unfreeze and from carriers, if applicable, that believe unfreezing category relationships would not be beneficial for them.

    23. In the years since 2000, many, and perhaps all, carriers subject to the category relationships freeze have made substantial investments to modernize their networks and to improve and expand their service offerings. In at least some instances, these investments are more weighted toward business data services, and away from switched access and common line categories, than the carriers' investments were as of 2000. If that is the case, under the category relationships freeze, disproportionate percentages of those carriers' investments are currently assigned to the common line and switched access categories. Are carriers that elected the category relationships freeze consequently unable to recover the costs of network upgrades from their business data services customers and from NECA's special access pool? If so, how does that circumstance impact their switched access rates? How many carriers subject to the category relationships freeze face these conditions, and how many would benefit from opting out of that freeze?

    24. The Commission asks commenters to specifically describe their current network investments compared to their investments in 2000 and to specify how their category relationships would change without a freeze. The Commission invites comment on what effect allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze would have on future investment. For example, would lifting the category relationships freeze promote greater investment in newer technologies and increased broadband deployment, and if so, how? The Commissions also seeks input on what impact unfreezing category relationships would have on how carriers recover their costs. For example, if carriers are allowed to update their network cost assignments to more accurately reflect the services they provide today, how would the pricing of services—particularly business data services—be affected? Would carriers seek to better align their rates for specific services with the underlying costs of those services? Would opting out of the freeze result in more efficient pricing, and how would it affect consumers in terms of service and pricing?

    25. Allowing carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze will necessarily shift costs between jurisdictions and among access elements, and may affect the universal service funding the carrier receives. The Commission asks parties to describe the direction of these changes and, where possible, to quantify them. More specifically, to what extent would unfreezing carriers' category relationships shift costs from the intrastate jurisdiction to the interstate jurisdiction, and from common line to special access? In the event of such shifts, what would be the effect on the carriers' receipt of CAF BLS and other universal service funding?

    26. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should impose measures to prevent carriers that opt out of the category relationships freeze from double-recovering costs through end-user charges and Connect America Fund intercarrier compensation (CAF ICC) support. If so, what specific measures should it adopt? For example, in the Eastex Waiver Order, the Bureau addressed the concern that a rate-of-return carrier might receive an inappropriate amount of universal service funding or double-recover its costs when its category relationships were unfrozen. This situation could occur because, under the USF/ICC Transformation Order, a carrier can in certain situations recover its reduced intercarrier compensation revenue through CAF ICC support based on a cost recovery mechanism that is tied to a carrier's interstate switched access revenue requirement for October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011 (FY2011). Thus, there is a risk that, as a carrier moves costs from the interstate switched access category into different categories, it could double-recover the same costs—once through CAF ICC support and again through special access rates and related NECA settlements.

    27. To prevent such a double recovery, in granting a waiver of the category relationships freeze to Eastex, the Bureau required Eastex to recalculate its 2011 Rate-of-Return Carrier Base Period Revenue (BPR) using actual, unfrozen categories and to file a revised interstate switched access revenue requirement. The Bureau expected that the recalculation would reduce the interstate switched access revenue requirement included in Eastex's BPR and shift costs from interstate common line to interstate special access. The Bureau concluded that removing “an amount representative of the FY2011 interstate revenue attributable to the investment being shifted from interstate switched access to other categories” from possible recovery though CAF ICC support would protect consumers and the USF.

    28. Consistent with this precedent, should the Commission require any carrier that opts out of the category relationships freeze to recalculate its BPR using unfrozen category relationships and to file a revised interstate switched access revenue requirement with the Commission? If the Commission requires carriers that are allowed to unfreeze their category relationships to recalculate their BPRs, it proposes to use 2011 cost study data because those are the most recent data that do not reflect the effects of the USF/ICC Transformation Order. The Commission invites parties to comment on this approach. While some carriers may have the necessary data to perform the study, others may not. For those that do not, the Commission invites parties to propose an alternative means of estimating the BPR adjustment that should be made.

    29. To the extent that a carrier's BPR is adjusted by the preceding calculations, should the Commission require that the carrier adjust its interstate switched access rate cap by a percentage amount equal to the adjustment made to the interstate projected revenue requirement component of the BPR? The carrier would then revise its rates to reflect the transitions mandated by the USF/ICC Transformation Order as of the date of the next annual access tariff filing. The Commission invites parties to comment on this approach and on whether it would provide a reasonable method for eliminating potential double recoveries resulting from unfreezing category relationships.

    30. In the interest of simplicity, the Commission proposes to allow carriers subject to the category relationships freeze a single opportunity to unfreeze their frozen category relationships. The Commission seeks comment on that approach. If the Commission provides this one-time opportunity, should it require that carriers electing to unfreeze their category relationships make conforming changes to their tariffs effective on July 1, 2019? If so, should it require that carriers with frozen categories notify the Commission and NECA (if a carrier participates in NECA's special access pool) by March 1, 2019 of their decisions to opt out of the category relationships freeze? Would a July 1, 2019 effective date provide carriers with sufficient time to implement any changes needed to update category relationships?

    31. In the alternative, should the Commission allow carriers subject to the category relationships freeze to unfreeze their category relationships at any date they choose in the future? What would be the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? Should the Commission allow a carrier presently subject to the category relationships freeze that opts to unfreeze its category relationships to refreeze those relationships at some future date? What would be the costs and benefits of this approach?

    32. Instead of allowing carriers the option of unfreezing their category relationships, should the Commission require all rate-of-return carriers that currently operate under the category relationships freeze to unfreeze their category relationships? What would be the impact of lifting the category relationships freeze for all carriers that elected the relationships freeze in 2001? Would it significantly increase the accuracy of separations results and, if so, would any benefits from that increased accuracy outweigh any costs that a mandatory unfreeze would impose?

    33. In adopting the separations freeze in 2001, the Commission anticipated that its “waiver process [would] provide a mechanism for relief when special circumstances warrant a deviation from the freeze.” The Commission previously granted two petitions for waiver to allow carriers to withdraw from the category relationships freeze and have two waiver requests pending. If the Commission does not allow all affected carriers to unfreeze their category relationships in this rulemaking, would other carriers subject to this relationships freeze feel the need to seek relief of the freeze through the waiver process? Are there particular facts or circumstances that the Commission should consider in assessing whether a carrier has demonstrated sufficient “good cause” to justify a waiver under the Commission's rules that would allow a carrier to unfreeze its category relationships?

    34. The Commission also seeks input on whether there is any reason to allow carriers not currently subject to the category relationships freeze to elect to freeze their categories. The Commission asks carriers to provide detailed information about any costs they encounter in categorizing their regulated costs and revenues as well as information on how their category relationships have changed over time. These carriers should address whether the benefits from eliminating those administrative costs would outweigh any loss in the accuracy of separations results that would arise from freezing their category relationships. Further, the Commission seeks input on what base period of data carriers should use for their calculations if it allows them to elect to freeze their category relationships.

    35. If the Commission allows carriers not currently subject to the category relationships freeze to elect to freeze their categories, what opportunities should the Commission provide for unfreezing them going forward? What procedures should the Commission adopt if it decides to allow changes in elections? For instance, should the Commission allow carriers to change their elections on a periodic basis—for example, every three years? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow carriers that opt to unfreeze their category relationships the option to update those category relationships and then refreeze them immediately or at some later date. What would be the costs and benefits to the carriers and to the public of allowing carriers to unfreeze and then refreeze their category relationships?

    C. Changes to Other Aspects of the Separations Freeze

    36. If the Commission adopts its proposal to extend the separations freeze, are there any other aspects of the freeze it should modify? The Commission asks commenters to identify any specific problems with the freeze as well as potential solutions.

    37. In the 2001 Separations Freeze Order, the Commission required that all rate-of-return incumbent LECs apportion their categorized costs using their allocation factors for the year 2000. Should the Commission allow, or require, rate-of-return LECs to reset their jurisdictional allocation factors using current data? The Commission asks commenters to describe in detail the benefits and costs of such actions. The Commission invites comment on whether the Commission should allow, or require, carriers to refreeze their jurisdictional allocation factors once they are reset. The Commission also seeks comment on how any reset of jurisdictional allocation factors should be implemented, including providing information regarding timeframes, deadlines, period of data to be used, and any other related details.

    D. Effect on Small Entities

    38. The Commission seeks comment on the effect that its proposals to extend the separations freeze and to allow rate-of-return carriers to opt out of the category relationships freeze would have on small entities, and whether any rules that the Commission adopts should apply differently to small entities. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and burdens of these proposals on small incumbent LECs and whether these proposals would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers. The Commission also seeks input on the effect, if any, on small entities of any other aspects of the separations freeze that it inquires about in this Further Notice.

    III. Procedural Matters A. Deadlines and Filing Procedures

    39. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document in CC Docket No. 80-286. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: 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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    40. Ex Parte Requirements. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    41. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and actions considered in this Further Notice. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Further Notice. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comment provided in the Further Notice. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    42. This document may contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    43. The vast majority of the part 36 jurisdictional separations rules were last updated more than 30 years ago. In 1997, the Commission initiated a proceeding to comprehensively reform those rules in light of the statutory, technological, and marketplace changes that had affected the telecommunications industry. In 2001, the Commission, pursuant to a recommendation by the Federal-State Joint Board on Jurisdictional Separations (Joint Board), froze the part 36 separations rules for a five-year period beginning July 1, 2001, or until the Commission completed comprehensive separations reform, whichever came first.

    44. The Commission has extended the freeze seven times, with the most recent extension set to expire on December 31, 2018. The Commission would prefer not to move forward on separations reform without a Joint Board recommendation on an approach to such reform, and the Board is not close to reaching a recommendation. Therefore, as a practical matter, completion of comprehensive separations reform by the expiration of the freeze on December 31, 2018 is highly unlikely, and the Commission must choose between extending the separations freeze and allowing long-unused separations rules to take effect on January 1, 2019.

    45. Because the Commission expects that the benefits of further extending the jurisdictional separations freeze likely outweigh the costs of allowing it to end, the Commission in this Further Notice proposes to extend the freeze for 15 years, and invites comment on whether a shorter extension would be preferable. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should alter the scope of the referral to the Joint Board regarding comprehensive separations reform. The Commission also proposes to permit rate-of-return carriers that elected to freeze their category relationships in 2001 to opt out of this freeze, and it seeks comment on that proposal.

    B. Legal Basis

    46. The legal basis for the Further Notice is contained in sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules May Apply

    47. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Nationwide, there are 28.8 million small businesses, according to the SBA.

    48. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the SBA definition, a carrier is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,307 incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most incumbent LECs are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies addressed in this Further Notice.

    49. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. Because the Commission's proposals concerning the Part 36 separations process will affect all rate-of-return incumbent LECs providing interstate services, some entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees may be affected by the proposals made in this Further Notice. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    50. If a rate-of-return carrier were allowed to opt out of the category relationships freeze, it would be able to update its Part 36 category relationships annually by doing new cost studies and then adjusting its rates. The Further Notice elicits comment on whether rates based on the updated relationships should take effect with the July 1, 2019 tariff filing. If so, as part of that filing, rate-of-return carriers will need to explain the new studies in the Description & Justification section and submit the results of these studies in their tariff review plans.

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

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

    52. The jurisdictional freeze has eliminated the need for all incumbent LECs, including incumbent LECs with 1,500 employees or fewer, to complete certain annual separations studies that otherwise would be required by the Commission's rules. Thus, an extension of this freeze would avoid increasing the administrative burden of regulatory compliance for rate-of-return incumbent LECs, including small incumbent LECs.

    53. Presently, rate-of-return carriers in about 45 study areas operate under a category relationships freeze. When the Commission granted rate-of-return carriers the opportunity to elect the category relationships freeze, it specified the freeze would be an interim, “transitional measure” lasting no more than five years. But, the freeze has now lasted 17 years, and carriers that elected it are prohibited from withdrawing from that election. The Commission proposes to grant these carriers the opportunity to opt out of this freeze. The Commission recognizes that the size and investment patterns of these carriers vary widely, and implementation of this proposal would enable an individual carrier to decide for itself if the economic benefits of unfreezing its category relationships outweigh any costs.

    54. The Commission seeks comment on the effect of its proposals on small entities, and whether any rules that the Commission adopts should apply differently to small entities. The Commission directs commenters to consider the costs and burdens of these proposals on small incumbent LECs and whether the proposals would disproportionately affect specific types of carriers or ratepayers.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    55. None.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    56. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, and 410 of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, that this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.

    57. It is further ordered, pursuant to section 220(i) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 220(i), that notice be given to each state commission of the above rulemaking proceeding, and that the Secretary shall serve a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on each state commission.

    58. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects for CFR Part 36

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Uniform system of accounts.

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 36 as follows:

    PART 36—JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS PROCEDURES; STANDARD PROCEDURES FOR SEPARATING TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY COSTS, REVENUES, EXPENSES, TAXES AND RESERVES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES 1. The authority citation for part 36 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 205, 220, 221(c), 254, 303(r), 403, 410, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 36.3 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 36.3 Freezing of jurisdictional separations category relationships and/or allocation factors.

    (b) Effective July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2033, local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign costs from the part 32 accounts to the separations categories/sub-categories, as specified herein, based on the percentage relationships of the categorized/sub-categorized costs to their associated part 32 accounts for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000. If a part 32 account for separations purposes is categorized into more than one category, the percentage relationship among the categories shall be utilized as well. Local exchange carriers that invest in types of telecommunications plant during the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2033, for which it had no separations category investment for the twelve month period ending December 31, 2000, shall assign such investment to separations categories in accordance with the separations procedures in effect as of December 31, 2000. Local exchange carriers not subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, may elect to be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Such election must be made prior to July 1, 2001. Any local exchange carrier that elected to be subject to paragraph (b) of this section may withdraw from that election by notifying the Commission prior to March 1, 2019 of its intent to withdraw from that election, and that withdrawal will be effective as of July 1, 2019. Any local exchange carrier choosing to withdraw from its election under paragraph (b) of this section that participates in an Association tariff, pursuant to § 69.601 et seq., also shall notify the Association prior to March 1, 2019, of such intent. Subject to that one exception, local exchange carriers that previously elected to become subject to paragraph (b) shall not be eligible to withdraw from such regulation for the duration of the freeze.

    § 36.126 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 36.126(b)(5) by removing the date “June 30, 2014” and adding in its place “December 31, 2033.”
    §§ 36.3, 36.123, 36.124, 36.125, 36.126, 36.141, 36.142, 36.152, 36.154, 36.155, 36.156, 36.157, 36.191, 36.212, 36.214, 36.372, 36.374, 36.375, 36.377, 36.378, 36.379, 36.380, 36.381, and 36.382 [Amended]
    3. In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date “December 31, 2018” and add in its place everywhere it appears the date “December 31, 2033” in the following places: a. Section 36.3(a), (c), (d) introductory text, and (e); b. Section 36.123(a)(5) and (6); c. Section 36.124(c) and (d); d. Section 36.125(h) and (i); e. Section 36.126(b)(6), (c)(4), (e)(4), and (f)(2); f. Section 36.141(c); g. Section 36.142(c); h. Section 36.152(d); i. Section 36.154(g); j. Section 36.155(b); k. Section 36.156(c); l. Section 36.157(b); m. Section 36.191(d); n. Section 36.212(c); o. Section 36.214(a); p. Section 36.372; q. Section 36.374(b) and (d); r. Section 36.375(b)(4) and (5); s. Section 36.377(a) introductory text, (a)(1)(ix), (a)(2)(vii), (a)(3)(vii), (a)(4)(vii); (a)(5)(vii), and (a)(6)(vii); t. Section 36.378(b)(1); u. Section 36.379(b)(1) and (2); v. Section 36.380(d) and (e); w. Section 36.381(c) and (d); and x. Section 36.382(a)
    [FR Doc. 2018-16040 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 180212159-8159-01] RIN 0648-BH75 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Shortfin Mako Shark Management Measures; Proposed Amendment 11 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is proposing to amend the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) based on the results of the 2017 stock assessment and a subsequent binding recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock is overfished and is experiencing overfishing. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), NMFS is proposing management measures that would reduce fishing mortality on shortfin mako sharks and establish a foundation for rebuilding the shortfin mako shark population consistent with legal requirements. The proposed measures could affect U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen who target and harvest shortfin mako sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea by increasing live releases and reducing landings.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by October 1, 2018. NMFS will hold six public hearings and an operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule for Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 11) in August and September 2018. For specific dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011, click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Guý DuBeck, NMFS/SF1, 1315 East-West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Please include the identifier NOAA-NMFS-2018-0011 when submitting comments. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the close of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    NMFS will hold six public hearings and one operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule and Draft Amendment 11. NMFS will hold public hearings in Corpus Christi, TX; Linwood, NJ; Manteo, NC; Morehead City, NC; Gloucester, MA; and St. Petersburg, FL. For specific locations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    Copies of the supporting documents—including the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and amendments are available from the HMS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-speciesor by contacting Guý DuBeck at (301) 427-8503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Guý DuBeck or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at (301) 427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The North Atlantic shortfin mako stock is managed primarily under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and also under ATCA. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of this proposed rule is provided below. Additional information regarding Atlantic shark management can be found in the DEIS accompanying this proposed rule for Amendment 11, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.

    North Atlantic Shortfin Mako Shark Stock Status and Emergency Interim Final Rule

    The North Atlantic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) is a highly migratory species that ranges across the entire North Atlantic Ocean and is caught by numerous countries. The stock is predominantly caught offshore in association with fisheries that primarily target tunas and tuna-like species. While these sharks are a valued component of U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries, U.S. catch represents only approximately 11 percent of the species' total catch in the North Atlantic by all reporting countries. International measures are, therefore, critical to the species' effective conservation and management.

    In August 2017, ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) conducted a new benchmark stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock. At its November 2017 annual meeting, ICCAT accepted this stock assessment and determined the stock to be overfished, with overfishing occurring. On December 13, 2017, based on this assessment, NMFS issued a status determination finding the stock to be overfished and experiencing overfishing applying domestic criteria. The assessment specifically indicated that biomass (B2015) is substantially less than the biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for eight of the nine models used for the assessment (B2015/BMSY = 0.57−0.85). In the ninth model, spawning stock fecundity (SSF) was less than SSFMSY (SSF2015/SSFMSY = 0.95). Additionally, the assessment indicated that fishing mortality (F2015) was greater than FMSY (1.93-4.38), with a combined 90 percent probability from all models that the population is overfished, with overfishing occurring. This was a change from the 2012 stock assessment that indicated that both the North and South Atlantic stocks of shortfin mako sharks were healthy and the probability of overfishing was low. However, the high uncertainty in past catch estimates and deficiency of some important biological parameters, particularly for the Southern stock, were still obstacles for obtaining reliable estimates of current status of the stocks.

    The 2017 assessment estimated that total North Atlantic shortfin mako catches across all ICCAT parties are currently between 3,600 and 4,750 metric ton (mt) per year. The assessment further indicated that such total catches would have to be at or below 1,000 mt (72-79 percent reductions) to prevent further population declines, and total catches of 500 mt or less would be expected to stop overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The stock assessment projections indicated that a total allowable catch of 0 mt would produce a greater than 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock by the year 2040, which is approximately equal to one mean generation time. The stock assessment report stated that while research indicates that post-release survival rates of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks are high (70 percent), the assessment could not determine if requiring live releases alone would reduce landings sufficiently to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. The stock assessment did not evaluate rebuilding times greater than one mean generation time, although shark stocks generally take longer than one mean generation time to rebuild given their slow reproductive biology and other factors.

    Based on this information and given that the stock is primarily caught in association with ICCAT fisheries, ICCAT at its November 2017 meeting adopted new management measures for Atlantic shortfin mako in Recommendation 17-08. The measures largely focus on maximizing live releases of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, allowing retention only in certain limited circumstances, increasing minimum size limits for retention, and improving data collection in ICCAT fisheries. ICCAT stated that the measures in the Recommendation “are expected to prevent the population from decreasing further, stop overfishing and begin to rebuild the stock” and provided for a six-month review. The Recommendation requires ICCAT parties that authorize retention to provide to ICCAT “the amount of North Atlantic shortfin mako caught and retained on board as well as dead discards during the first six months in 2018 by one month prior to the 2018 Commission annual meeting.” The Recommendation specifies that at its annual meeting in November 2018, ICCAT will review the catches from the first six months of 2018 and decide whether these measures should be modified. In 2019, the SCRS will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in ending overfishing and beginning to rebuild the stock. The SCRS will also provide rebuilding information that reflects rebuilding timeframes of at least two mean generation times, taking into consideration the slow reproductive biology of sharks and other factors. The Recommendation provides that in 2019, ICCAT will establish a rebuilding plan that will have a high probability of avoiding overfishing and rebuilding the stock to BMSY within a timeframe that takes into account the biology of the stock.

    On March 2, 2018, NMFS implemented an interim final rule using emergency authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c), to quickly implement measures in the HMS recreational and commercial fisheries consistent with Recommendation 17-08. NMFS solicited public comment on that rule through May 7, 2018. See id. (allowing extension of rule for not more than 186 days if public has opportunity for comment). The purpose of the emergency interim final rule was to address overfishing and to ensure that the U.S. can provide meaningful information reflective of the new measures to ICCAT for the six-month reporting requirement in the Recommendation (83 FR 8946). Management measures adopted through the interim final rule, and which remain in effect, are as follows:

    • Commercial fishermen on vessels deploying pelagic longline gear, which are required to have a functional electronic monitoring system on board under current regulations, must release all live shortfin mako sharks with a minimum of harm, while giving due consideration to the safety of crew members. Commercial fishermen using pelagic longline gear can only retain a shortfin mako shark if it is dead at haulback;

    • Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear, etc.) must release all shortfin mako sharks, whether they are dead or alive; and

    • Recreational fishermen (fishermen with HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat permits and fishermen with Atlantic Tunas General category and Swordfish General Commercial permits when participating in a registered HMS tournament) must release any shortfin mako sharks smaller than the newly-implemented minimum size of 83 inches (210 centimeters (cm)) fork length (FL). This minimum size was an increase from the previous minimum size of 54 inches FL. This measure was different than the separate minimum size limits for males (180 cm FL) and females (210 cm FL) recommended in ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. The ICCAT stock assessment upon which the Recommendation was based had recommended an overall reduction in shortfin mako shark landings (or is it mortality?) for ICCAT parties. Consistent with this, in developing this proposed rule, NMFS analyzed minimum sizes in the context of U.S. fisheries and believes that a single minimum size limit of 83 inches (210 cm) FL is needed to address the U.S. portion of recommended mortality reduction (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of the DEIS). Furthermore, confirming the sex of a large and potentially active shortfin mako shark prior to its landing could be challenging for fishermen and may have safety implications. A single minimum size limit for the species is also simpler to implement and enforce.

    The emergency measures are initially effective for 180 days (ending on August 29, 2018), and may be extended to March 3, 2019. Once finalized, this rule is intended to replace these emergency measures with long-term measures. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 11 of the Consolidated HMS FMP was published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2018 (83 FR 9255).

    Proposed Measures

    The objectives of Draft Amendment 11 and this proposed rule are to address overfishing and establish a foundation for rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock, which ICCAT will adopt in 2019 after obtaining additional scientific information, as set out in Recommendation 17-08. In a DEIS, NMFS considered alternatives to meet the objectives of the Amendment. Given the various objectives, NMFS divided alternatives into the following four broad categories for organizational clarity and to facilitate effective review: Commercial fishery, recreational fishery, monitoring, and rebuilding. As summarized below, NMFS fully considered 29 alternatives within these categories and is preferring five measures, one in the commercial fishery, two in the recreational fishery (each regarding a different regulation type), one regarding monitoring, and one regarding rebuilding the stock, to meet the objectives of the rule and achieve at least a 75 percent reduction in U.S. shortfin mako shark landings consistent with the suggested level of reduction recommended in the stock assessment. The stock assessment recommends this level of reduction throughout the stock's range, and all ICCAT parties are committed to take the specified measures to achieve the needed reductions. NMFS' detailed analysis of the alternatives is provided in the DEIS for Draft Amendment 11 (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of the DEIS) and a summary is provided in the IRFA below. In developing the alternatives, NMFS considered commercial retention restrictions and the 83 inch FL recreational minimum size limit now temporarily in place through the emergency interim final rule, public comments received on that rule, other conservation and management measures that have been implemented in the HMS fisheries since 2008 that have affected shark fisheries or shark bycatch in other fisheries, and public comments received on the Amendment 11 Issues and Options paper, including comments provided at the March 2018 HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In response to public comment on this proposed rule and the DEIS, NMFS may make changes in the final rule by modifying the proposed measures or adopting different or additional measures that were not preferred in this proposed rule.

    This proposed rule also includes a minor change to the regulations specific to sharks to provide clarity and consistency throughout the regulations. Specifically, this rule proposes minor changes to § 635.30 (c)(4) to update the regulatory language to reference shark endorsements on permits and to clarify when non-commercial fishermen must retain the head, fins, and tails on a shark carcass.

    Commercial Measures

    Under this proposed rule, a commercial fisherman on a vessel with a directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could only retain shortfin mako sharks if the shark is dead at haulback, the vessel is deploying pelagic longline gear, and there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel (Alternative A2). This proposed measure is the same commercial measure instituted under the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). Pelagic longline vessels would be required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Commercial fishermen using gear other than pelagic longline commercial gear (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear, etc.) would be required to release or discard all shortfin mako sharks, whether they are alive or dead at haulback.

    Pelagic longline fishermen rarely target shortfin mako sharks. Instead, fishermen usually catch shortfin mako sharks incidentally while fishing for valuable target species such as tunas and swordfish. Based on observer data, over 70 percent of the shortfin mako sharks interacted with in the pelagic longline fishery were alive at the vessel. Commercial fishermen using other gear types rarely, if ever, catch shortfin mako sharks. Since 2012, only four shortfin mako shark were observed in the bottom longline shark fishery and none were observed in the gillnet shark fishery. Combining live releases in the pelagic longline fishery and prohibiting the minimal landings from other commercial gears, NMFS expects this alternative to result in reductions in U.S. commercial landings of shortfin mako sharks by approximately 75 percent. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

    In addition to this preferred commercial alternative, NMFS also considered a No Action (Alternative A1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place (given that the emergency rule is an interim rule that will expire), along with alternatives that would modify the commercial retention restrictions (Alternative A3); use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks and compliance with the size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5); and prohibit commercial retention (Alternative A6). These alternatives are not preferred at this time. The No Action alternative (Alternative A1) would not implement any new management measures and thus would not reduce shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternative that allows commercial fishermen to opt in or out of an electronic monitoring program (Alternative A3) for shortfin mako sharks would be an additional burden on the fishermen that would not have any measurable conservation or management benefits. The program would also be complicated to administer and would create two separate data streams from within the fleet, as some vessels and catch would be compared and analyzed differently due to different regulatory restrictions. The alternative that would use electronic monitoring and/or observers to verify the status of boarded sharks (live or dead) or compliance with any size limit (Alternatives A4 and A5) would place more restrictive limits on fishermen, particularly pelagic longline fishermen, than allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback under the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction without such restrictions. The alternative prohibiting commercial retention (Alternative A6) could disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim. This alternative also would cause more negative economic impacts when compared to the preferred alternative, which would achieve the suggested mortality reduction.

    Recreational Measures

    NMFS is proposing two measures for the recreational fishery for sharks. Under the first proposed measure (Alternative B3), HMS recreational fishermen could only land shortfin mako sharks, male or female, that are at least 83 inches fork length (210 cm FL). As with the commercial alternative, this alternative matches the management measure implemented in the emergency interim final rule (83 FR 8946; March 2, 2018). According to length composition information from the Large Pelagics Survey, this recreational minimum size would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed by approximately 83 percent in the HMS recreational fishery and would reduce the weight of landings by at least 68 percent. It is likely that the reductions in landings under this alternative would be significantly greater than what is estimated in this proposed rule and the DEIS, as the number of recreational trips targeting shortfin mako sharks would likely decrease substantially given the large increase in the overall size limit and the smaller minimum size limit (54 inches FL for other shark species). Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

    The second proposed measure (Alternative B9) would require the use of non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing recreationally for sharks in federal waters. The current regulatory requirement for such hooks applies to shark fishing in federal waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), as implemented in Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As mentioned in in more detail in the DEIS, circle hooks are a bycatch mortality mitigation tool that have shown promise in a number of fisheries for various species including sharks. Most evidence suggests that circle hooks reduce shark mortality rates at-vessel and post-release without reducing catchability of target species compared to J-hooks, although the reduction in mortality rate varies by species, gear configuration, bait, and other factors. By design, circle hooks tend to hook sharks in the jaw rather than in the throat or gut (deep-hooking), thereby reducing injury and associated mortality.

    For shortfin mako sharks specifically, research shows that the use of circle hooks reduces gut-hooking and increases post-release survival. French et al. (2015) examined the effects of recreational fishing techniques, including hook type, on shortfin mako sharks and found that circle hooks were more likely to hook shortfin mako sharks in the jaw compared to J-hooks. In the study, circle hooks were most likely to hook in the jaw (83 percent of the time) while J-hooks hooked in the jaw only 20 percent of the time but in the throat or gut 60 percent of the time. Jaw-hooking is correlated with increased odds of post release survival. Therefore, implementing this measure is anticipated to have direct short- and long-term minor, beneficial ecological impacts.

    In addition to the proposed measure, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative B1) which would maintain the regulations before the emergency rule went into place, along with alternatives that would prohibit recreational retention of shortfin mako sharks (Alternative B10); modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7); and establish a recreational tagging program (Alternative B8). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because they would complicate the regulations for fishermen and not meet the scientific advice for shortfin mako mortality reduction as well as the preferred alternatives. The no action alternative (Alternative B1) would not implement any new management measures and not reduce the shortfin mako shark mortality as needed to end overfishing and begin rebuilding the stock. The alternatives that would modify the recreational size limit by sex and seasonal retention or slot limits (Alternatives B2, B4, B5, B6, and B7) would not meet the objectives of this action as well as the preferred alternatives, and they would add unnecessary complexity to the recreational regulations. The alternative that would establish a landings tag program (Alternative B8) could increase the potential landings of shortfin mako sharks and cause unnecessary administrative burden in managing such a program. The alternative that considered prohibiting recreational retention entirely would be unnecessarily restrictive, have little effect on ending overfishing, and disadvantage U.S. fishermen compared to fishermen in other ICCAT nations that implement the ICCAT recommendation verbatim, which requires less restrictive measures.

    Monitoring Measures

    NMFS considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems and mandatory reporting of recreational catches. However, after considering these alternatives, NMFS is proposing the No Action alternative (Alternative C1) in relation to monitoring measures. This preferred alternative would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries, likely resulting in direct, short- and long-term, neutral ecological impacts. HMS commercial fishermen would continue to report shortfin mako catches through vessel logbooks along with dealer reporting of landings and electronic monitoring systems would be used to verify that the shortfin mako sharks were dead at haulback. HMS recreational anglers fishing from Maine to Virginia would continue to be required to report shortfin mako shark landings and releases if intercepted by the Large Pelagic Survey, and data would continue to be collected on shortfin mako shark catches by the Access Point Angler Intercept Survey, which is part of the Marine Recreational Information Program. Thus, no additional reporting requirements would be placed on HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who land shortfin mako sharks on non-tournament trips. Tournament operators would continue to be required to report landings associated with shark tournaments if their tournaments are selected for reporting.

    ICCAT's SCRS recommended that member nations strengthen their monitoring and data collection efforts to monitor the future status of this stock. Consistent with the SCRS recommendation, NMFS plans to select shark tournaments for reporting using existing regulations and authorities. The regulations at 50 CFR 635.5(d) require Atlantic HMS tournament operators to register their tournaments with NMFS, and authorize NMFS to select any HMS tournaments for reporting. Currently, NMFS only selects billfish and swordfish tournaments for reporting; however in their reports, those tournaments report catches of all HMS including sharks. Thus some, but not all, shark catch information from selected billfish and swordfish tournaments are already being collected. The tournament registration category of “pelagic shark” (which includes shortfin mako shark) makes up 95 percent of all shark tournaments and because information from the remaining 5 percent of shark tournaments will be useful for management of non-pelagic sharks, NMFS intends to select all shark tournaments for reporting. Therefore, Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, in combination with selecting all shark tournaments for reporting (which does not require any new regulations) is anticipated to have neutral ecological impacts.

    In addition to the No Action (Alternative C1), NMFS also considered alternatives that would require mandatory reporting on vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) and mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3). A number of alternatives that were considered and/or commented on during the development of this action are not preferred at this time because the current reporting requirements for all HMS commercial vessels are sufficient to meet the purpose and need of this action and additional potential measures would place undue burden on recreational fishermen and potentially create enforcement issues. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting on the vessel monitoring systems (Alternative C2) would unnecessarily increase burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report in other ways (vessel logbooks, dealer reports of landings and electronic monitoring system) that are sufficient vehicles for improving data collection for shortfin mako sharks. The alternative that would implement mandatory reporting of recreational catches (Alternative C3) would unnecessarily increase the burden on recreational fishermen and monitoring of catches and compliance by NMFS because NMFS estimates of shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery currently have relatively high precision, as evidenced by the low percent standard error rates in the Large Pelagic Survey.

    Rebuilding Measures

    Under the proposed measure (Alternative D3), NMFS would take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako shark stock. As part of this, NMFS would promote Magnuson-Stevens Act's rebuilding provisions and approaches and other relevant provisions of the Act. See 16 U.S.C. 1812(c). This rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based on new scientific advice from the SCRS, which is currently scheduled to be available in 2019. Under this alternative, NMFS would continue to implement the new management measures adopted through this rulemaking for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks in United States fisheries based on ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Any future international management recommendations adopted by ICCAT for shortfin mako sharks would be implemented domestically. Currently, the United States contributes only 11 percent of the mortality for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks and domestic reductions of shortfin mako shark mortality alone could not end overfishing of the entire North Atlantic stock or effectively rebuild the stock. Therefore, NMFS will continue to take action at the international level through ICCAT, the relevant international fishery management organizations. Through this process, all ICCAT members fishing on the stock participate in the establishment of effective conservation and management measures to end overfishing of and rebuild shortfin mako sharks. In the long-term, any management recommendations adopted at the international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks and rebuild the stock could have direct, moderate beneficial ecological impacts on the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark population by reducing overall mortality of shortfin mako sharks and rebuilding the stock. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States will participate and advocate for an effective rebuilding plan and continue to work through ICCAT on implementation and enforcement of effective conservation and management measures to end overfishing.

    In addition to Alternative D3, NMFS also considered No Action (Alternative D1) and alternatives that would establish a domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT (Alternative D2); establish a species-specific quota if established by ICCAT (Alternative D4); implement area management if established by ICCAT (Alternative D5); and bycatch caps (Alternative D6). The no action alternative would cause no rebuilding plan to be established. Alternative D2 (domestic rebuilding plan without ICCAT) would not be effective given the stock's range and the fact that the United States catches are only a small part of catches Atlantic-wide. Thus, this alternative would allow the stock to continue to be overfished, with overfishing continuing to occur. Given that U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small, Alternative D4 considers potential impacts of a shortfin mako shark quota if established by ICCAT as opposed to a unilateral U.S. quota. Alternative D4 is not preferred at this time, because ICCAT does not have a total allowable catch for shortfin mako shark, but instead, has measures aimed at reducing mortality and a six-month review to determine if further measures are needed. Alternative D5 (area management) is also not preferred at this time, because ICCAT has not adopted, and does not have scientific information yet to support, such a measure. The current ICCAT Recommendation calls on SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Alternative D6 (bycatch caps) is not preferred, because U.S. catches of shortfin mako are small thus unilateral U.S. bycatch caps will not address overfishing and rebuilding. This alternative would thus have more economic impacts than the preferred alternative without achieving the purpose and need of the action and would unfairly disadvantage U.S. fishermen, as ICCAT currently does not require bycatch caps.

    Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses described in this proposed rule and contained in the DEIS, IRFA, and RIR for Draft Amendment 11. Comments may be submitted via hhtp://www.regulations.gov or mail. Comments may also be submitted at a public hearing (see Public Hearings and Special Accommodations below). We solicit comments on this proposed rule by October 1, 2018 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).

    Public Hearings

    Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov or mail and comments may also be submitted at a public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by October 1, 2018. During the comment period, NMFS will hold six public hearings and one operator-assisted public hearing via conference call and webinar for this proposed rule and draft Amendment 11. The hearing locations will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Guý DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. NMFS has also asked to present information on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 11 to the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery Management Councils, and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico States Marine Fisheries Commissions at their meetings during the public comment period. Please see their meeting notices for dates, times, and locations. In addition, NMFS will present at the HMS Advisory Panel meeting in September, to discuss this rulemaking. NMFS will announce the location and times of HMS Advisory Panel meeting in a future Federal Register notice.

    Table 1—Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and Conference Call Venue Date/time Meeting location Location contact information Public Hearing August 22, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m Corpus Christi, TX Dr. Clotilde Garcia Public Library, 5930 Brockhampton Street, Corpus Christi, TX 78414. Public Hearing August 23, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m Linwood, NJ Linwood Public Library, 301 Davis Avenue, Linwood, NJ 08211. Public Hearing August 28, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m Manteo, NC Commissioners Meeting Room, Dare County Administration Building, 954 Marshall C. Collins Drive, Manteo, NC 27954. Public Hearing August 29, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m Morehead City, NC NCDMF Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557. Public Hearing August 30, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m Gloucester, MA National Marine Fisheries Service, Grater Atlantic Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Public Hearing August 30, 2018, 5 p.m.-8 p.m St. Petersburg, FL National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Conference call September 12, 2018, 2 p.m.-4 p.m To participate in conference call, call: (888) 831-4306, Passcode: 2693278, To participate in webinar, RSVP at: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?MTID=e64dda334375685e91c704ca0a5e9882f, A confirmation email with webinar log-in information will be sent after RSVP is registered.

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of the conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do not, they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to speak during the conference call.

    Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    NMFS prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the impact on the environment that would result from this rule. A copy of the DEIS is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Notice of Availability of the DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the same day as this proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the alternatives considered is described above.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of Amendment 11 is to develop and implement management measures to address overfishing and take steps towards rebuilding the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark stock. Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to modify the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08).

    Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. (See Chapter 1 of the DEIS for a full description of the objectives of this action.) Consistent with the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS proposes to amend the 2006 Atlantic HMS FMP in response to the stock status determination for shortfin mako sharks and the subsequent ICCAT Recommendation (17-08). NMFS has identified the following objectives with regard to this proposed action:

    • Address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks;

    • Develop and implement management measures consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08; and

    • Take steps towards rebuilding the shortfin mako shark stock pending planned development of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, which is necessarily to effectively address stock rebuilding across its range

    Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA's regulations for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). In this final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. The SBA has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party boat entities. The SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.

    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the recreational management measures, HMS Angling (Recreational) category permits are typically obtained by individuals who are not considered businesses or small entities for purposes of the RFA because they are not engaged in commercial business activity. Vessels with the HMS Charter/Headboat category permit can operate as for-hire vessels. These permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes (i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have average annual revenues of less than $7.5 million). Overall, the recreational alternatives would have impacts on the portion of the 3,618 HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders who fish for or retain sharks. There were also 282 registered HMS tournaments in 2017, which could be impacted by this rule. Of those registered HMS tournaments, 72 had awards or prizes for pelagic sharks.

    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the preferred commercial alternatives, the average annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 million, well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities (i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide). The preferred commercial alternatives would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas Longline category permit holders, 221 directed shark permit holders, and 269 incidental shark permit holders. Of these 280 permit holders, 85 pelagic longline vessels were actively fishing in 2016 based on logbook records. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear.

    NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely directly affect any small organizations or small government jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length. More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected, and the categories and number of permit holders, can be found in Chapter 3 of the DEIS.

    Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

    Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.

    One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as:

    1. Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

    2. Clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities;

    3. Use of performance rather than design standards; and

    4. Exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

    These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives. Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives from different categories in this proposed rulemaking and provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives.

    The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.

    Commercial Alternatives

    Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would keep the non-emergency rule regulations for shortfin mako sharks. Once the emergency rule for shortfin mako sharks expires, management measures would revert back to those effective before March 2018 (e.g., no requirement to release shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback). Directed and incidental shark LAP holders would continue to be allowed to land and sell shortfin mako sharks to an authorized dealer, subject to current limits, including the pelagic shark commercial quota. Short-term direct economic impacts on small entities would likely be neutral since commercial fishermen could continue to catch and retain shortfin mako sharks at a similar level and rate as the status quo.

    In recent years, about 180,000 lb dressed weight (dw) of shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which equates to approximately 1 percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook reports. Therefore, the average revenue from shortfin mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel is $4,291 per year.

    Even though pelagic longline gear is the primary commercial gear used to land shortfin mako sharks, other gear types also occasionally interact with this species. Based on HMS logbook data, an average of 10 vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear interacted with shortfin mako sharks between 2012 and 2016, which is also equal to the 2016 number of vessels reporting shortfin mako sharks on non-pelagic longline gear. Therefore, these vessels that used gear other than pelagic longline gear landed an average of only $1,028 worth of shortfin mako sharks per year.

    Under Alternative A2, the preferred alternative, retention of shortfin mako sharks would only be allowed if the following three criteria are met: (1) The vessel has been issued a Directed or Incidental shark LAP, (2) the shark is dead at haulback, and (3) there is a functional electronic monitoring system on board the vessel. This alternative is designed to be consistent with one of the limited provisions allowing retention of shortfin mako sharks under ICCAT Recommendation 17-08. Under the current HMS regulations, all HMS permitted vessels that fish with pelagic longline gear are already required to have a functional electronic monitoring system (79 FR 71510; December 2, 2014) and either a Directed or an Incidental shark LAP. Vessels utilizing other gear types (i.e., gillnet or bottom longline) are not required to have an electronic monitoring system under current regulations but could choose to install one if the operator wishes to retain shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback and if the vessel holds a commercial shark LAP. Under this alternative, the electronic monitoring system would be used to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback to ensure that only sharks dead at haulback were retained.

    This alternative would be consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-08 and would reduce the number of landings by pelagic longline vessels on average by 74 percent based on observer data from 2013-2016. A 74 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce revenues by an average of $3,175 per vessel for the 85 activate pelagic longline vessels and would eliminate all of the $1,028 in landing per vessel by the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that landing shortfin mako sharks since those vessels are unlikely to have electronic monitoring systems currently installed. Those non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels if it there were an economic incentive for those vessels to try to retain shortfin mako sharks under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels. However, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

    Alternative A3 is similar to Alternative A2 except that the ability to retain dead shortfin mako sharks would be limited to permit holders that opt in to a program that would use the existing electronic monitoring systems, which are currently used in relation to the bluefin tuna IBQ program, also to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks at haulback. In other words, this alternative would allow for retention of shortfin mako sharks that are dead at haulback by persons with a Directed or Incidental shark LAP only if permit holders opt in to enhanced electronic monitoring coverage. If the permit holder does not opt in to the enhanced electronic monitoring coverage, they could not retain any shortfin mako sharks.

    The economic impacts to small entities under this alternative are expected to be similar to those under Alternative A2. Under this alternative, a portion of the pelagic longline fleet could opt out of any retention of shortfin mako sharks, resulting in a greater reduction in overall shark ex-vessel revenue for those vessels. Overall, the socioeconomic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Non-pelagic longline vessels would need to pay to install electronic monitoring systems if they wish to retain shortfin mako sharks, introducing an additional expense for those vessels. Due to the low commercial value of shortfin mako sharks and the high cost of electronic monitoring it is reasonable to expect that these fisheries will not install cameras and therefore will not retain shortfin mako sharks. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities, because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

    Alternative A4 would establish a commercial minimum size of 83 inches FL (210 cm FL) for retention of shortfin mako sharks caught incidentally during fishing for other species, whether the shark is dead or alive at haulback. Based on observer data, only six percent of shortfin mako sharks caught with pelagic longline gear greater than 83 inches FL. Thus, restricting fishermen to retaining six percent of shortfin mako sharks would represent a considerable reduction in number of shortfin mako sharks landed and in the resulting ex-vessel revenue. A 94 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,034 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $966 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

    Alternative A5 would allow fishermen to retain shortfin mako sharks caught on any commercial gear (e.g., pelagic longline, bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) provided that an observer is on board that can verify that the shark was dead at haulback. Under this alternative, electronic monitoring would not be used to verify the disposition of shortfin mako sharks caught on pelagic longline gear, but instead pelagic longline vessels could only retain shortfin mako sharks when the sharks are dead at haulback and an observer is on board.

    Since only 5 percent of pelagic longline gear trips are observed, this alternative would result in a 95 percent reduction in the number of shortfin mako sharks retained on pelagic longline gear. A 95 percent reduction in shortfin mako landings would reduce annual revenues by an average of $4,076 per vessel for the 85 active pelagic longline vessels and would reduce annual revenues by an average of $977 per vessel for the 10 non-pelagic longline vessels that land shortfin mako sharks. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

    Alternative A6 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks list to prohibit any catch or retention of shortfin mako sharks in commercial HMS fisheries. In recent years, about 180,000 lb dw of shortfin mako sharks have been landed and the commercial revenues from shortfin mako sharks have averaged approximately $375,000 per year, which equates to approximately one percent of overall HMS ex-vessel revenues. That revenue would be eliminated under this alternative. Approximately 97.26 percent of shortfin mako commercial landings, based on dealer reports, were made by pelagic longline vessels. There were 85 pelagic longline vessels that were active in 2016 based on logbook reports. Therefore, the average loss in annual revenue from shortfin mako shark landings per pelagic longline vessel would be $4,291 per year. The average loss in annual revenue from shortfin mako shark landings for vessel using other gear types would be $1,028 per year. However, the overall economic impacts associated with these reductions in revenue are not expected be substantial, as shortfin mako sharks comprise less than one percent of total HMS ex-vessel revenues on average. Additionally, the magnitude of shortfin mako landings by other gear types (e.g., bottom longline, gillnet, handgear) is very small. Overall, this alternative would have minor economic costs on small entities because these measures would reduce the number of shortfin mako sharks landed and sold by these fishing vessels, however, shortfin mako sharks are rarely a target species and are worth less than other more valuable target species.

    Recreational Alternatives

    While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders and tournament operators are considered to be small entities and could be potentially impacted by the various recreational alternatives, as described below.

    Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any management measures in the recreational shark fishery to decrease mortality of shortfin mako sharks. This would result in no additional economic impacts on small entities associated with this fishery in the short-term.

    Under Alternative B2, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks. This increase in the size limit is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed. While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing season, such a significant increase in the minimum size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks.

    Under Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, the minimum size limit for retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased to 83 inches FL for both males and female sharks consistent with the measure implemented in the emergency rule. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in an 83 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 68 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the minimum size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. An 83 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 6 percent. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. Tournaments account for over half of directed recreational trips for shortfin mako sharks, and 77 percent of them in the month of June when effort is at its highest. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B4, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 108 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the minimum size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 72 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to approximately 9 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B5, recreational HMS permit holders would only be allowed to retain male shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 71 inches FL and female shortfin mako sharks that measure at least 120 inches FL. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this increase in the size limit would result in a 76 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 73 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. A 76 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8.6 percent. This could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B6a, the minimum size limit for the retention of shortfin mako sharks would be increased from 54 inches FL to 71 inches FL for male and 83 inches FL for female shortfin mako sharks, and a shortfin mako fishing season would be established from May through October. The fishing season established under this alternative would have little to no effect on shortfin mako fishing activity in the Northeast, but may reduce fishing effort in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions; however, a lack of data on targeted trips for shortfin mako sharks in this region makes any assessment of potential socioeconomic impacts difficult. However, this combination of increase in the size limit and fishing season is projected to reduce recreational landings by at least 64 percent in numbers of sharks landed, and 49 percent in the weight of sharks landed in the Northeast. A 64 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 13 percent. This reduction on directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B6b, NMFS would establish a three-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks spanning the summer months of June through August. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 100 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 475 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each September and October, representing approximately 10 percent of all annual directed trips. No registered HMS tournaments held in September and October target sharks exclusively, so it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is much more likely that directed fishing effort would be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. This reduction could result in a significant reduction in directed fishing trips for shortfin mako sharks, thus leading to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboat operators.

    Under Alternative B6c, NMFS would establish a two-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the months of June and July. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 90 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 1,264 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each August through October, representing approximately 26 percent of all annual directed trips. Only two registered HMS tournaments held in August through October target sharks exclusively, one out of New York that primarily targets thresher sharks and one out of Florida where participants fish exclusively from shore. Thus, it is highly unlikely this alternative would result in the rescheduling of any tournaments due to the fishing season. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 78 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 76 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 78 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B6d, NMFS would establish a one-month fishing season for shortfin mako sharks for the month of June only. This season would be combined with a 71 inches FL minimum size limit for males and 83 inches FL for females. Based on estimates from the Large Pelagics Survey, on average 2,435 directed trips are taken for shortfin mako sharks each July through October, representing approximately 51 percent of all annual directed trips. Additionally, there are seven registered HMS tournaments held in July through October that target sharks exclusively, including three of four tournaments held in the state of Rhode Island, and the only tournament in Massachusetts to target sharks exclusively. It is likely that directed fishing effort would also be affected by the increases in the minimum size limits. Assuming this increase in the size limit has minimal effect on fishing effort directly towards shortfin mako sharks within the season, this combination of season and increase in the size limit should result in a 79 percent reduction in the number of sharks landed, and a 78 percent reduction in the weight of sharks landed. Such a large increase in the size limit and associated reduction in landings is unlikely to have no effect on directed fishing effort. A 79 percent reduction in shortfin mako sharks harvested would thus reduce the percentage of directed trips harvesting them to 8 percent. This reduction in directed trips could lead to moderate adverse economic impacts on some charter/headboats and tournament operators.

    Under Alternative B6e, NMFS would establish a process and criteria for determining season dates and minimum size limits for shortfin mako sharks on an annual basis through inseason actions. This process would be similar to how the agency sets season opens and retention limits for the shark commercial fisheries and the Atlantic Tunas General category fishery. NMFS would review data on recreational landings, catch rates, and effort levels for shortfin mako sharks in the previous years, and establish season dates and minimum size limits that would be expected to achieve the reduction targets established by ICCAT, and the objectives of the HMS fisheries management plan. This alternative would also allow NMFS to minimize adverse economic impacts to the HMS recreational fishery by allowing for adjustments to the season and size limits based on observed reductions and redistribution of fishing effort resulting from measures implemented in previous years.

    Under Alternative B7, NMFS would implement a “slot limit” for shortfin mako sharks in the recreational fishery. Under a slot limit, recreational fishermen would only be allowed to retain shortfin mako sharks within a narrow size range (e.g., between 71 and 83 inches FL) with no retention above or below that slot. Assuming no reduction in directed fishing effort, this alternative would be expected to result in similar reductions in landings as other alternatives analyzed here. While this alternative would not establish a shortfin mako fishing season, as described above in earlier alternatives, such a significant increase in the size limit would likely result in some reduction in directed fishing effort for shortfin mako sharks. This reduction in effort may be further exacerbated by the complicated nature of slot limits regulations. Similar to Alternative B2, there are two factors that might minimize reductions in fishing effort (harvested shortfin mako sharks peaks between 71 and 77 inches FL and shifting focus to other HMS species). The amount of effort reduction by recreational fishermen would depend on how much HMS anglers and tournaments are satisfied to practice catch-and-release fishing for sub-legal shortfin mako sharks or shift their fishing effort to other species.

    Under Alternative B8, NMFS would establish a landings tag requirement and a yearly limit on the number of landings tags assigned to a vessel, for shortfin mako sharks over the minimum size limit. This requirement would be expected to negatively affect fishing effort. An increase in the minimum size limit and a yearly cap on landings for vessels would reduce effort drastically, while maintaining some opportunity for the recreational fleet. This effort reduction would adversely affect the charter fleet the most by limiting the number of trips that they could land shortfin mako sharks each year. This effort reduction may also affect their ability to book trips. At least one tournament directed at shortfin mako sharks in the Northeast has chosen to cancel its 2018 event due to the more stringent current 83 inches FL minimum size limit. By excluding tournaments from a landings tag requirement there may be a direct beneficial economic impact for tournaments, as this would be an additional opportunity, beyond their tags, to land shortfin mako sharks for permit holders.

    Alternative B9, a preferred alternative, would expand the requirement to use non-offset, non-stainless steel circle hook by all HMS permit holders with a shark endorsement when fishing for sharks recreationally, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures, to all waters managed within HMS management division. Currently, this requirement is in place for all Federally managed waters south of 41°43′ N latitude (near Chatham, Massachusetts), but this alternative would remove the boundary line, requiring fishermen in all areas to use circle hooks. Recreational shark fishermen north of Chatham, Massachusetts would need to purchase circle hooks to comply with this requirement, although the cost in modest. Additionally, it is possible that once the circle hook requirement in expanded, fishermen in the newly impacted area could find reduced catch rates of sharks including shortfin mako sharks. If reduced catch rates are realized, effort in the recreational shark fishery, including the for-hire fleet, could be impacted by reduced number of trips or reduced demand for chartered trips.

    Alternative B10 would place shortfin mako sharks on the prohibited sharks list to prohibit the retention of shortfin mako sharks in recreational HMS fisheries. HMS permit holders would be prohibited from retaining or landing shortfin mako sharks recreationally. In recreational fisheries, recreational fishermen would only be authorized to catch and release shortfin mako sharks. A prohibition on the retention of shortfin mako sharks is likely to disincentives some portion of the recreational shark fishery, particularly those individuals that plan to target shortfin mako sharks. Businesses that rely of recreational shark fishing such as tournament operators and charter/headboats may experience a decline in demand resulting in adverse economic impacts.

    Monitoring Alternatives

    Alternative C1, the preferred alternative, would make no changes to the current reporting requirements applicable to shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Since there would be no changes to the reporting requirements under this alternative, NMFS would expect fishing practices to remain the same and direct economic impacts in small entities to be neutral in the short-term.

    Under Alternative C2, NMFS would require vessels with a directed or incidental shark LAP to report daily the number of shortfin mako sharks retained and discarded dead, as well as fishing effort (number of sets and number of hooks) on a vessel monitoring system (VMS). A requirement to report shortfin mako shark catches on VMS for vessels with a shark LAP would be an additional reporting requirement for those vessels on their existing systems. For other commercial vessels that are currently only required to report in the HMS logbook, the requirement would mean installing VMS to report dead discards of shortfin mako and fishing effort.

    If a vessel has already installed a type-approved enhanced mobile transmitting unit (E-MTU) VMS unit, the only expense would be monthly communication service fees, which they may already be paying if the vessel is participating in a Council-managed fishery. Existing regulations require all vessel operators with E-MTU VMS units to provide hail out/in declarations and provide location reports on an hourly basis at all times while they are away from port. In order to comply with these regulations, vessel owners must subscribe to a communication service plan that includes an allowance for sending similar declarations (hail out/in) describing target species, fishing gear possessed, and estimated time/location of landing using their E-MTU VMS. Given that most shortfin mako sharks are incidentally caught by pelagic longline vessels that are already required to have an E-MTU VMS system onboard, adverse economic impacts are not expected. If vessels with a shark LAP do not have an E-MTU VMS unit, direct, economic costs are expected as a result of having to pay for the E-MTU VMS unit (approximately $4,000) and a qualified marine electrician to install the unit ($400). VMS reporting requirements under this alternative could potentially provide undue burden to HMS commercial vessels that already report on catches, landings, and discards through vessel logbooks, dealer reports, and observer reports.

    Alternative C3 would implement mandatory reporting of all recreational interactions (landed and discarded) of shortfin mako sharks in HMS fisheries. Recreational HMS permit holders would have a variety of options for reporting shortfin mako shark landings including a phone-in system, internet website, and/or a smartphone app. HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat permit holders currently use this method for required reporting of each individual landing of bluefin tuna, billfish, and swordfish within 24 hours. NMFS has also maintained a shortfin mako shark reporting app as an educational tool to encourage the practice of catch-and-release. Additionally, the potential burden associated with mandatory landings reports for shortfin mako sharks would be significantly reduced under the increased minimum size limits being considered in this rulemaking, although it would still represent an increased burden over current reporting requirements. While HMS Angling permit holders are not considered small entities by NMFS for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Charter/Headboat permit holders are considered to be small entities and would be potentially impacted by this alternative.

    Rebuilding Alternatives

    Under Alternative D1, NMFS would not establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks and would maintain the current recreational and commercial shark fishing regulations that pertain to shortfin mako sharks in U.S. fisheries. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries.

    Under Alternative D2, NMFS would establish a domestic rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks unilaterally (i.e., without ICCAT). While such an alternative could avoid overfishing shortfin mako sharks in the United States by changing the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries operate, such a plan could not effectively rebuild the stock, since U.S. catches are only 11 percent of the reported catch Atlantic-wide. Such an alternative would be expected to cause short- and long-term direct economic impacts.

    Under Alternative D3, the preferred alternative, NMFS would take preliminary action toward rebuilding by adopting measures to end overfishing to establish a foundation for a rebuilding plan. NMFS would then take action at the international level through ICCAT to develop a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks. ICCAT is planning to establish a rebuilding plan for shortfin mako sharks in 2019, and this rebuilding plan would encompass the objectives set forth by ICCAT based on scientific advice from the SCRS. This alternative would not result in any changes to the current recreational and commercial domestic regulations for shortfin mako sharks in the short-term. There would likely be no direct short-term impact on small entities from this alternative as there would be no change in fishing effort or landings of shortfin mako sharks that would impact revenues generated from the commercial and recreational fisheries. Management measures to address overfishing of shortfin mako sharks could be adopted in 2019. These measures could change the way that the U.S. recreational and commercial shortfin mako shark fishery operates, which could cause long-term direct economic impacts. Any future action to implement international measures would be analyzed in a separate rulemaking.

    Under Alternative D4, NMFS would remove shortfin mako sharks from the commercial pelagic shark management group and would implement a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks as established by ICCAT, which would include both commercial and recreational catches as well as dead discards. In addition, NMFS would establish a new commercial pelagic shark species quota for common thresher and oceanic whitetip sharks based on recent landings. The 2017 ICCAT stock assessment indicated that the North Atlantic population of shortfin mako sharks is overfished and experiencing overfishing. In November 2017, ICCAT adopted management measures (Recommendation 17-08) to address the overfishing determination, but did not recommend a total allowable catch (TAC) necessary to stop overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, it is difficult at this time to determine how setting a species-specific quota for shortfin mako sharks would affect commercial and recreational fishing operations. However, this species-specific quota may provide long-term direct, minor adverse economic impacts if ICCAT established a TAC for the United States that is well below the total average harvest by the United States (i.e., 379 mt whole weight (ww) or 195 mt dw) or below the current annual commercial quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako (488 mt dw) as it could potentially limit the amount of harvest for fishermen. Short-term direct socioeconomic impacts would be neutral for Alternative D4 because initially there would be no reduction in fishing effort and practices.

    Under Alternative D5, NMFS would take steps to implement area-based management measures domestically if such measures are established by ICCAT. Recommendation 17-08 calls on the SCRS to provide additional scientific advice in 2019 that takes into account a spatial/temporal analysis of North Atlantic shortfin mako shark catches in order to identify areas with high interactions. Without a specific area to analyze at this time, the precise impacts with regard to impacts on commercial and recreational fishery operations cannot be determined. Implementing area management for shortfin mako sharks, if recommended by the scientific advice, could lead to a reduction in localized fishing effort, which would likely have adverse economic impacts for small entities that land shortfin mako sharks.

    Under Alternative D6, NMFS would establish bycatch caps for fisheries that interact with shortfin mako sharks. This alternative would impact the HMS pelagic longline and shark recreational fisheries similar to Alternative D4. However, this alternative could also impact non-HMS fisheries by closing those fisheries if the bycatch cap were reached. This alternative could lead to short-term adverse impacts since the bycatch caps could close fisheries if they are reached until those fishermen could modify fishing behavior to avoid shortfin mako sharks (even in fisheries where shortfin mako sharks are rarely, if ever, seen) and reduce interactions. In the long-term, this alternative would have neutral impacts as the vessels would avoid shortfin mako sharks. The impacts to small businesses are expected to be neutral in the short and long-term as their businesses would not change.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

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

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

    2. Revise definition for “FL (fork length)” to read as follows:
    § 635.2 Definitions.

    FL (fork length) means the straight-line measurement of a fish from the midpoint of the anterior edge of the fish to the fork of the caudal fin. The measurement is not made along the curve of the body.

    3. In § 635.20, remove paragraph (e)(7), lift the suspension on paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6), and revise paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6) to read as follows:
    § 635.20 Size limits.

    (e) * * *

    (2) All sharks, except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(6) of this section, landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 54 inches (137 cm) FL.

    (6) All North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks landed under the recreational retention limits specified at § 635.22(c)(2) must be at least 83 inches (210 cm) fork length.

    4. In § 635.21, revise paragraphs (a)(4), (c)(1)(iv), (f)(2) and (3), and (k)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
    § 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

    (a) * * *

    (4) Any person on board a vessel that is issued a commercial shark permit must release all shortfin mako sharks, whether alive or dead, caught with any gear other than pelagic longline gear.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel are required to promptly release in a manner that causes the least harm any shortfin mako shark that is alive at the time of haulback. Any shortfin mako shark that is dead at the time of haulback may be retained provided the electronic monitoring system is installed and functioning in compliance with the requirements at § 635.9.

    (f) * * *

    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who is participating in an HMS registered tournament that bestows points, prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.

    (3) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.

    (k) * * *

    (1) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under this part and who is participating in an HMS registered tournament that bestows points, prizes, or awards for Atlantic sharks must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing sharks, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.

    (2) A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued an HMS Angling permit with a shark endorsement or a person on board a vessel with an HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement must deploy only non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing, except when fishing with flies or artificial lures.

    5. In § 635.24, remove paragraphs (a)(4)(v) and (vi), lift the suspension for paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii), and revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii) to read as follows:
    § 635.24 Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas.

    (a) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may retain, possess, or land pelagic sharks if the pelagic shark fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21 (c)(1).

    (iii) Consistent with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental shark LAP may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 16 SCS and pelagic sharks, combined, per vessel per trip, if the respective fishery is open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and pelagic sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 8 shall be blacknose sharks. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained by persons using pelagic longline gear, and only if each shark is dead at the time of haulback per § 635.21(c)(1).

    6. In § 635.30, paragraph (c)(4) is revised to read as follows:
    § 635.30 Possession at sea and landing.

    (c) * * *

    (4) Persons aboard a vessel that has been issued or is required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement must maintain a shark intact through landing and offloading with the head, tail, and all fins naturally attached. The shark may be bled and the viscera may be removed.

    7. In § 635.71, revise paragraphs (d)(22), (23), (27), (28), and (29) to read as follows:
    § 635.71 Prohibitions.

    (d) * * *

    (22) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when fishing at a registered recreational HMS fishing tournament that has awards or prizes for sharks, as specified in § 635.21(f) and (k).

    (23) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, corrodible circle hooks when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit with a shark endorsement, as specified in § 635.21(f) and (k).

    (27) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with gear other than pelagic longline gear as specified at § 635.21(a).

    (28) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear and was alive at haulback as specified at § 635.21(c)(1).

    (29) As specified at § 635.21(c)(1), retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught with pelagic longline gear when the electronic monitoring system was not installed and functioning in compliance with the requirements at § 635.9.

    [FR Doc. 2018-15822 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 RIN 0648-BH16 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Announcement of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to the Secretary of Commerce for review and approval. We are requesting comments from the public on this amendment. This action is necessary to prevent the reactivation of latent effort in the longfin squid fishery, preserve economic opportunities for more recently active participants in the longfin squid fishery, avoid overharvest during Trimester II (May-August) of the longfin squid fishery, and reduce potential negative impacts on inshore spawning longfin squid aggregations and egg mops. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council intends that these proposed measures would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0110, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0110, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on Amendment 20.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Amendment 20 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that describes the proposed action and other alternatives considered and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed measures and alternatives considered. Copies of Amendment 20, including the EA, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, are available from: Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 State Street, Dover, DE 19901. The EA and associated analysis is accessible via the internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/s/Squid-Amendment-Draft-EA.pdf.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Christel, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9141.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In 1995, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted a limited access permit system for longfin squid and butterfish as part of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP (April 2, 1996; 61 FR 14465). Under Amendment 5, NMFS issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits to vessels that landed a minimum amount of either species during a specified qualification period. Since then, the number of vessels landing longfin squid has decreased, with a relatively small portion of vessels issued longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits landing the majority of longfin squid in recent years. The Council is concerned that unused longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permits could be activated, which could lead to excessive fishing effort and bycatch of both longfin squid and non-target species. This could cause negative biological impacts to these species. In addition, this increased effort could increase the race to fish and reduce access to available longfin squid quota by vessels with a continuous history of landings in recent years. Therefore, the Council developed Amendment 20 to consider the appropriate number of vessels in the directed and incidental longfin squid fishery and design appropriate measures to prevent unanticipated increases in fishing effort. The proposed measures described below could help prevent a race to fish, frequent and disruptive fishery closures, and reduced fishing opportunities for vessels that are more recently dependent upon longfin squid.

    Longfin squid spawning occurs year round, but is most frequently observed inshore during the late spring through early fall. Spawning aggregations and associated egg masses (mops) that are attached to the bottom are vulnerable to bottom fishing activities during the summer months when longfin squid are easily accessible to the fishery in large concentrations. In 2007, the Council implemented reduced quotas during summer months (May through August, or Trimester II) as part of the trimester quota system (January 30, 2007; 71 FR 4211). The Council developed the trimester quota system to improve the monitoring and management of the longfin squid fishery and prevent allowable quotas from being exceeded. Once a trimester quota has been caught, possession limits are reduced to incidental levels for all longfin squid permits. The FMP currently includes a possession limit of 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) per trip for incidental permits and when the directed fishery has closed. However, this incidental limit has allowed vessels to continue to land large amounts of longfin squid even after the directed fishery is closed, which contributed to the Trimester II quota being exceeded by large amounts in several years. The Council is concerned that excessive fishing effort inshore during Trimester II could negatively impact the stock, interrupting spawning activity, increasing the mortality of squid eggs, and reducing future recruitment. Measures developed by the Council under this action are intended to reevaluate the management of longfin squid during Trimester II primarily to reduce impacts to spawning squid and egg mops.

    The purpose of Amendment 20 is to optimize management measures in the squid fisheries by reducing latent (unused) effort in the longfin squid fishery and adjusting the management of the longfin squid fishery during Trimester II (May through August) to avoid overharvesting the longfin squid resource. Although the Council considered reducing the number of Illex squid moratorium permits in the fishery, the Council decided a reduction in the number of Illex moratorium permits was not appropriate at this time given low Illex landings and limited vessel participation in the fishery in recent years. Measures proposed under this action would promote the sustainable utilization and conservation of the longfin squid and butterfish resources, while promoting the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimizing adverse economic impacts on such communities. If approved, Amendment 20 would:

    1. Separate butterfish from the current longfin/butterfish moratorium permit to create a new butterfish moratorium permit and a separate longfin squid moratorium permit;

    2. Reissue longfin squid moratorium permits to vessels that landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;

    3. Create a new longfin squid moratorium permit with a 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) possession limit for vessels that have not landed at least 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of longfin squid in any year from 1997-2013;

    4. Create a new longfin squid incidental moratorium permit to enable vessels to continue to land 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of longfin squid per trip;

    5. Allow individual entities issued multiple longfin squid moratorium permits a one-time opportunity to swap such permits among their vessels; and

    6. Reduce the longfin squid possession limit from 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) to 250 lb (113 kg) for squid/butterfish incidental catch permits and for all longfin squid permits after the Trimester II longfin squid quota is landed.

    NMFS seeks public comments on Amendment 20 and its incorporated documents through the end of the comment period specified in the DATES section of this notice of availability (NOA). Concurrent with NMFS's review of the amendment under the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures, NMFS may publish a rule proposing to implement measures outlined in this amendment in the Federal Register for public comment. All comments received by the end of the comment period on the NOA, whether specifically directed to the NOA or the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision. NMFS will not consider comments received after the end of the comment period for the NOA in the approval/disapproval decision of this action.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-15970 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 145 Friday, July 27, 2018 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License AGENCY:

    Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, intends to grant to Domtar Paper Company, LLC of Fort Mill, South Carolina, an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 9,540,244, “METHODS FOR SYNTHESIZING GRAPHENE FROM A LIGNIN SOURCE”, issued on January 10, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to: Thomas Moreland, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1118, [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Moreland, Technology Transfer Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, 443-677-6858, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Domtar Paper Company, LLC of Fort Mill, South Carolina has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Mojdeh Bahar, Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16135 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0049] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Emergency Management Response System ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the Emergency Management Response System.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0049.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0049, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0049 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the Emergency Management Response System, contact Dr. Fred Bourgeois, EMRS National Coordinator, PIC, NPIC, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737; (318) 288-4083. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Emergency Management Response System.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0071.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to protect the health of U.S. livestock and poultry populations by preventing the introduction and interstate spread of serious diseases and pests of livestock and by eradicating such diseases from the United States when feasible.

    The Emergency Management Response System (EMRS), which is a web-based system, helps APHIS manage and investigate potential incidents of foreign animal diseases in the United States. When a potential foreign animal disease incident is reported, APHIS or State animal health officials dispatch a foreign animal disease veterinary diagnostician to the premises of the reported incident to conduct an investigation. The diagnostician obtains vital epidemiologic data by conducting field investigations, including sample collection, and by interviewing the owner or manager of the premises being investigated. These important data, which are submitted electronically by the diagnostician into EMRS, include such items as the purpose of the diagnostician's visit and suspected disease, type of operation on the premises, the number and type of animals on the premises, the number of sick or dead animals on the premises, the results of physical examinations of affected animals and necropsy examinations, vaccination information on the animals in the herd or flock, biosecurity practices at the site, whether any animals were recently moved out of the herd or flock, whether any new animals were recently introduced into the herd or flock, the number and kinds of test samples taken, and detailed geographic data concerning the premises location. EMRS allows these epidemiological and diagnostic data to be documented and transmitted more efficiently.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

    Respondents: Owners or operators of livestock and poultry facilities and State animal health officials.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 136.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 12.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 1,632.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,632 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of July 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16213 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0051] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Apples From China AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of apples from China.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0051.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0051, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0051 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of apples from China, contact Mr. Benjamin Kaczmarski, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2127. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Apples From China.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0423.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. Regulations authorized by the PPA concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world are contained in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83).

    Under these regulations, apples from China may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions, as listed in § 319.56-72, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require information collection activities that include an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registrations, tracking system, box labeling, phytosanitary certificates with declarations, inspections, investigation for detection, handling procedures, and emergency action notifications.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.022 hours per response.

    Respondents: National plant protection organization of China, production sites and packinghouses (businesses), and importers of apples.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 186.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 275.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 51,125.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,117 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of July 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16098 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2018-0050] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Papayas From Peru ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of papayas from Peru into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 25, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0050.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2018-0050, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road. Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0050 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations related to the importation of papayas from Peru into the continental United States, contact Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Coordinator, RCC, IRM, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2352. For more detailed information on the information collection, contact Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Papayas From Peru.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0410.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world as provided in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-83).

    In accordance with § 319.56-25, papayas from Peru may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions require the use of certain information collection activities that include applications for permits; registration of growing sites; inspections of crops, insect traps, and recordkeeping; submitting notices of arrival to ports; and responding to emergency action notifications. Also, each consignment of papayas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru containing an additional declaration stating the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with § 319.56-25. These actions allow the importation of papayas from Peru while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of plant pests.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.53 hours per response.

    Respondents: Growers and importers of papayas from Peru and the NPPO of Peru.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 52.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 54.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 2,804.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,507 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of July 2018. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16210 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Food Distribution Program: Value of Donated Foods From July 1, 2018, Through June 30, 2019 AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the national average value of donated foods or, where applicable, cash in lieu of donated foods, to be provided in school year 2019 (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019) for each lunch served by schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and for each lunch and supper served by institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).

    DATES:

    July 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Smalkowski, Program Analyst, Policy Branch, Food Distribution Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, or telephone (703) 305-2680.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    These programs are located in the Assistance Listings under Nos. 10.555 and 10.558 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

    This notice imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping provisions that are subject to Office of Management and Budget review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act. This notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

    National Average Minimum Value of Donated Foods for the Period July 1, 2018, Through June 30, 2019

    This notice implements mandatory provisions of sections 6(c) and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1755(c) and 1766(h)(1)(B)). Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act establishes the national average value of donated food assistance to be given to States for each lunch served in the NSLP at 11.00 cents per meal. Pursuant to section 6(c)(1)(B), this amount is subject to annual adjustments on July 1 of each year to reflect changes in a three-month average value of the Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions for March, April, and May each year (Price Index). Section 17(h)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the same value of donated foods (or cash in lieu of donated foods) for school lunches shall also be established for lunches and suppers served in the CACFP. Notice is hereby given that the national average minimum value of donated foods, or cash in lieu thereof, per lunch under the NSLP (7 CFR part 210) and per lunch and supper under the CACFP (7 CFR part 226) shall be 23.50 cents for the period July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019.

    The Price Index is computed using five major food components in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (cereal and bakery products; meats, poultry, and fish; dairy; processed fruits and vegetables; and fats and oils). Each component is weighted using the relative weight as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The value of food assistance is adjusted each July 1 by the annual percentage change in a three-month average value of the Price Index for March, April, and May each year. The three-month average of the Price Index increased by 0.64 percent from 203.76 for March, April, and May of 2017, as previously published in the Federal Register, to 205.07 for the same three months in 2018. When computed on the basis of unrounded data and rounded to the nearest one-quarter cent, the resulting national average for the period July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019, will be 23.50 cents per meal. This is an increase of one quarter of a cent from the school year 2018 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018) rate.

    Authority:

    Sections 6(c)(1)(A) and (B), 6(e)(1), and 17(h)(1)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)(1)(A) and (B) and (e)(1), and 1766(h)(1)(B)).

    Dated: July 16, 2018. Brandon Lipps, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16028 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Sites AGENCY:

    Idaho Panhandle National Forests, USDA Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of new fee sites.

    SUMMARY:

    The Idaho Panhandle National Forests is proposing to charge new fees at one day-use boat launch for $5 per vehicle; one dump stations for $10 per use; eight campgrounds for $10 or $15 per night, and an additional $5 extra vehicle fee, starting at the third vehicle; nine boat-in campgrounds for $15 per night; one horse camp for $10 per night; one group campsite for $50 per night; and two cabin/lookout rentals at $45 or $55 per night. These new fees would align the sites with the other sites offering similar amenities and services.

    These fees are only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Send any comments about these fee proposals by August 27, 2018 so comments can be compiled, analyzed, and shared with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. The proposed effective date of implementation of proposed new fees will be no earlier than six months after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jeanne Higgins, Forest Supervisor, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815 or Email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Jurgensen, Forest Recreation Program Manager Idaho Panhandle National Forests at 208-765-7214 or [email protected] Information about proposed fee changes can also be found on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/ipnf.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, P.L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by the BLM Coeur d'Alene Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Specifically, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests is proposing the following new fees:

    • Beaver Creek Cabin; proposed fee of $55 per night;

    • Spyglass Ground House; proposed fee of $45 per night;

    • Big Creek, Camp 3, Line Creek Stock Camp, Packsaddle, and Telichpah campgrounds; proposed fee of $10 per night, with an additional $5 extra vehicle fee per night for more than two vehicles;

    • Conrad Crossing, Fly Flat, Mammoth Springs, and Spruce Tree campgrounds; proposed fee of $15 per night, with an additional $5 extra vehicle fee per night for more than two vehicles;

    • Bottle Bay, Geisinger, Navigation, Plowboy, Teacher Bay, Trapper, and Tule Bay Boat-in campgrounds on Priest Lake; proposed fee of $15 per night;

    • Green Bay and Whiskey Rock boat-in campgrounds on Pend Oreille Lake; proposed fee of $15 per night;

    • Reynolds Creek Group camp site; proposed fee of $50 per night;

    • Shadowy St. Joe Day Use Boating site; proposed fee of $5 per vehicle, per day;

    • Priest Lake Information Site (RV Dump Station); proposed fee of $10 per use.

    Additional construction is required at the Spyglass Ground House to complete the renovation project and it is anticipated that this site would be available for the public to rent in May of 2019. The Beaver Creek Cabin is currently unfurnished and would be available to rent in 2018 for $45 per night; however, once the cabin is furnished the fee would be raised to $55 per night.

    Reasonable fees, paid by users of these sites and services, will help ensure that the Forest can continue maintaining and improving the sites for future generations. A market analysis of surrounding recreation sites with similar amenities indicates that the proposed fees are comparable and reasonable.

    Advance reservations for the Beaver Creek Cabin, Lunch Peak Lookout, and Spyglass Ground House will be available through www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. The reservation service charges a $10 fee for reservations.

    Dated: January 10, 2018. Chris French, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System. Editorial Note:

    This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 23, 2018.

    [FR Doc. 2018-16032 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Service [Docket No. NIFA-2018-003] Notice of Intent for Renewal of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, which implemented the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA's) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection (OMB No. 0524-0026) for Form NIFA-666, “Organizational Information.”

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by September 25, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted to Robert Martin, Records Officer, Information Policy, Planning and Training by any of the following methods: Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA/USDA; Mail Stop 2216; 1400 Independence Avenue SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; Hand Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street SW, Waterfront Centre, Room 4206, Washington, DC 20024; or Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Martin, Records Officer, Information Policy, Planning and Training, Office of Information Technology, NIFA/USDA, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Organizational Information.

    OMB Control Number: 0524-0026.

    Expiration Date of Current Approval: October 30, 2018.

    Type of Request: Intent to extend a currently approved information collection for three years.

    Abstract: NIFA has primary responsibility for providing linkages between the Federal and State components of a broad-based, national agricultural research, extension, and education system. Focused on national issues, its purpose is to represent the Secretary of Agriculture and carry out the intent of Congress by administering capacity and grant funds appropriated for agricultural research, extension, and education. Before awards can be made, certain information is required from applicants to effectively assess the potential recipient's capacity to manage Federal funds.

    Need and Use of the Information: Form NIFA-666 “Organizational Information”: Enables NIFA to determine that the applicants recommended for awards will be responsible recipients of Federal funds. The information requested from the applicant pertains to the organizational and financial management of the potential grantee. This form and the attached applicant documents provide NIFA with information such as the legal name of the organization, certification that the organization has the legal authority to accept Federal funding, identification and signatures of the key officials, the organization's policies for employee compensation and benefits, equipment insurance, policies on subcontracting with other organizations, etc., as well the financial condition of the organization and certification that the organization is not delinquent on Federal taxes. All of this information is considered prior to award, to determine the grantee is both managerially and fiscally responsible. This information is submitted to NIFA on a one-time basis and updated accordingly. If sufficient changes occur within the organization, the grantee submits revised information.

    Estimate of the Burden: NIFA estimates the number of responses for the Form NIFA-666 will be 150 with an estimated response time of 6.3 hours per form, representing a total annual burden of 945 hours for this form. These estimates are based on a survey of grantees that were approved for grant awards.

    They were asked to give an estimate of time it took them to complete each form. This estimate was to include such things as: (1) Reviewing the instructions; (2) searching existing data sources; (3) gathering and maintaining the data needed; and (4) actual completion of the forms. The average time it took each respondent was calculated from their responses.

    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 will have a practical utility;

    (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection 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.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 19th day of July 2018. Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Acting Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16100 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Broadband e-Connectivity Pilot Program AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of inquiry and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, invites comment on the implementation of certain provisions of its pilot broadband program (e-Connectivity Pilot) established on March 23, 2018, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. The e-Connectivity Pilot was appropriated $600 million in budget authority to be operated under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 on an expedited basis. Loans and grants are limited to the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible communities.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 10, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified as e-Connectivity Pilot, by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Rural Utilities Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select RUS-18-TELECOM-0004 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send your comment addressed to Michele Brooks, Rural Development Innovation Center, Regulations Team Lead, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Stop 1522, Room 1562, Washington, DC 20250. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. RUS-18-TELECOM-0004.

    Other Information: Additional information about Rural Development and its programs is available on the internet at https://www.usda.gov/topics/rural.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 779 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) appropriated $600 million for a pilot broadband program (e-Connectivity Pilot) to be operated under the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.). The e-Connectivity Pilot was directed to expedite loans and grants for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural areas. Those areas are defined as having at least 90 percent of the households without sufficient access to broadband, defined as 10 Mbps downstream, and 1 Mbps upstream. Applications for eligible rural areas are prohibited from over-building or duplicating broadband expansion efforts made by any entity that has received a broadband loan from the Rural Utilities Service. Applications must also be evaluated by the service area assessment requirements of Section 601(d)(10) of the RE Act (7 U.S.C. 950bb(d)(10)) so that existing broadband providers may provide input on service in the proposed service area. In the absence of responses, RUS is directed to use the most current data of the National Broadband Map, or any other data regarding the availability of broadband service that may be collected or obtained through reasonable efforts.

    Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comment

    RUS seeks input on several questions concerning development of the e-Connectivity Pilot. Comments are requested from a broad range of stakeholders with an interest in rural broadband deployment. Specifically, RUS seeks comment on the following:

    (1) Eligible rural areas are defined as having at least 90 percent of the households without sufficient access to broadband, defined in the law as 10 Mbps downstream, and 1 Mbps upstream. At present, RUS is working to determine what types of technologies and services are defined as “sufficient access.” In particular, RUS is seeking information about the transmission capacity required for economic development, and speed and latency, especially in peak usage hours, to ensure rural premises have access to coverage similar to that offered in urban areas. Comments are specifically requested on whether affordability of service should be included in evaluating whether an area already has “sufficient access” and how to benchmark affordability of internet services. And if so, what equates to consumers' costs being so high that they are effectively rendered inaccessible to rural households? Further, what other elements should RUS consider when defining sufficient access?

    (2) RUS uses a combination of a Public Notice Filing—Public Notice Response process through our online mapping tool and the most current data of the National Broadband Map, or any other data regarding the availability of broadband service that may be collected or obtained through reasonable efforts. RUS' mapping tool will publicly post proposed service territories of applicants to allow existing service providers an opportunity to comment if 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream service exists for households in the proposed service area or not. Notwithstanding this data, comments are sought on how data speeds are to be used or verified, given the limited availability of publicly-available information regarding accurate broadband speeds provided to rural households. Additionally, what other sources of data availability should be used for evaluation?

    (3) RUS is working to ensure that projects funded by the e-Connectivity pilot provide improvements to rural prosperity. This includes projects that benefit rural industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, e-commerce, transportation, health care, and education. Comments are specifically requested on effective methods that can measure leading indicators of potential project benefits for these sectors, using readily available public data. USDA is also aiming to improve rural economies, especially for those being served. Comments are also being sought on how to evaluate the viability of applications that include local utility partnership arrangements, including locally-owned telecommunications companies where possible.

    Dated: July 17, 2018. Jonathan P. Claffey, Senior Policy Advisor, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16014 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations; Extension of Nominations Submission Period AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations; extension of nominations submission period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is issuing this document to extend the nominations submission period for the Request for Nominations of Members to Serve on the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, which was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2018. The extension is in response to public demand for more time to submit nominations for the Committee. The nominations submission period, which would have ended on August 3, 2018, is now extended until September 4, 2018.

    DATES:

    Nomination submissions on the notice of request for nominations published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25643) must be received by September 4, 2018. The Census Bureau will retain nominations received after this date for consideration should additional vacancies occur.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations to the [email protected] (subject line “2018 NAC Nominations”) or by letter submission to Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, 2018 NAC Nominations, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, Customer Liaison Marketing Services Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, at (301) 763-5222 or [email protected] For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2. For more information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process, please see the original document on the notice of request for nominations published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25643).

    In response to individuals and organizations who have requested more time to submit nominations of members to serve on the Committee, the Census Bureau has decided to extend the nominations submission period to September 4, 2018. This document announces the extension of the nominations submission period.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16020 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Census Scientific Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) requests nominations of individuals to the Census Scientific Advisory Committee. The Census Bureau will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice provides Committee and membership criteria.

    DATES:

    Please submit nominations by September 25, 2018. The Census Bureau will retain nominations received after this date for consideration should additional vacancies occur.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations to the [email protected] (subject line “2018 CSAC Nominations”) or by letter submission to Tara Dunlop Jackson, Committee Liaison Officer, 2018 CSAC Nominations, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 763-5222 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Census Scientific Advisory Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix 2. The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.

    Objectives and Duties

    1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee advises the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau on the uses of scientific developments in statistical data collection, statistical analysis, survey methodology, geospatial analysis, econometrics, cognitive psychology, and computer science as they pertain to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities (including: Communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics).

    2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee provides scientific and technical expertise from the following disciplines: Demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology and computing, marketing, communications, and other fields of expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. This expertise is necessary to ensure that the Census Bureau continues to provide relevant and timely statistics used by tribal, federal, state, and local governments as well as business and industry in an increasingly technologically-oriented society.

    3. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee functions solely as an advisory body under the FACA.

    4. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee reports to the Director of the Census Bureau.

    Membership

    1. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee consists of up to 21 members and one Chair appointed by the Director of the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau is currently filling five seats.

    2. Members are appointed for a three-year term.

    3. Members shall serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and will be subject to the ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Committee membership will be reevaluated at the conclusion of the three-year term. Member renewal will be based on active attendance, participation in meetings, administrative compliance, Census Bureau needs, and the Director's concurrence.

    4. Committee members are selected in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee aims to have balanced representation, considering such factors as geography and technical and scientific expertise. The Committee will include members from diverse backgrounds, including academia and private enterprise, which are further diversified by business type or industry, geography, and other factors.

    5. No employee of the federal government can serve as a member of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee.

    Miscellaneous

    1. Members of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee serve without compensation, but receive reimbursement for Committee-related travel and lodging expenses.

    2. The Census Scientific Advisory Committee meets once or twice a year, budget permitting. Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by the Census Bureau Director or Designated Federal Official. All Committee meetings are open to the public in accordance with the FACA.

    Nomination Information

    1. Nominations are requested as described above.

    2. Nominees must have scientific and technical expertise in such areas as demography, economics, geography, psychology, statistics, survey methodology, social and behavioral sciences, Information Technology, computing, or marketing. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director of the Census Bureau on the trends, uses, and application of scientific innovations and developments in relation to the full range of Census Bureau programs and activities.

    3. The Census Bureau is especially interested in receiving applications from persons with expertise in demography, statistics, business/finance, sociology, and marketing.

    4. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of individual candidates. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, Committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and/or special Committee activities.

    5. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Ron S. Jarmin, Associate Director for Economic Programs, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16021 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-103-2018] Foreign-Trade Zone 93—Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; Application for Subzone; MAS US Holdings, Inc.; Siler City and Asheboro, North Carolina

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, requesting subzone status for the facilities of MAS US Holdings, Inc., located in Siler City and Asheboro, North Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 23, 2018.

    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (40.4 acres) 1311 Eleventh Street, Siler City, Chatham County; Site 2 (21.74 acres) 601 East Pritchard Street, Asheboro, Randolph County; and, Site 3 (3.46 acres) 162 North Cherry Street, Asheboro, Randolph County. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 93.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 5, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 20, 2018.

    A copy of the application 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 FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16077 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-964] Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube (copper pipe and tube) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maisha Cryor AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On November 1, 2017, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on copper pipe and tube from China for the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017.1 On November 21, 2017, the Ad Hoc Coalition for Domestically Produced Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube and its individual members 2 (collectively, the petitioners), timely requested that Commerce conduct an administrative review of this antidumping duty order with respect to Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc. (Golden Dragon).3 On January 11, 2018, Commerce initiated an administrative review with respect to Golden Dragon, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).4 On March 29, 2018, the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review.5

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 50620 (November 1, 2017).

    2 The individual members of Ad Hoc Coalition for Domestically Produced Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube are Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Howell Metal Company, Mueller Copper Tube Products, Inc., and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.

    3See Letter from the petitioners, “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China: Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated November 21, 2017.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 1329, 1333 (January 11, 2018).

    5See Letter from the petitioners, “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China: Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated March 29, 2018.

    Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioners withdrew their request for review by the 90-day deadline. Because Commerce received no other request for a review of the antidumping duty order with respect to Golden Dragon, and no other requests were made for a review of the antidumping duty order with respect to other companies, we are rescinding this administrative review covering the period November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of copper pipe and tube from China during the POR. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 20, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16075 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference; Meeting AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of 11th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference.

    Mission Description

    The United States Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA), with participation from the U.S. Departments of Energy and State, is organizing the 11th Annual U.S. Industry Program at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference, to be held September 16-19, 2018, in Vienna, Austria. The IAEA General Conference is the premier global meeting of civil nuclear policymakers and typically attracts senior officials and industry representatives from all 162 Member States. The U.S. Industry Program is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (DOC) Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative, a U.S. Government effort to help U.S. civil nuclear companies identify and capitalize on commercial civil nuclear opportunities around the world. The purpose of the program is to help the U.S. nuclear industry promote its services and technologies to an international audience, including senior energy policymakers from current and emerging markets as well as IAEA staff.

    Representatives of U.S. companies from across the U.S. civil nuclear supply chain are eligible to participate. In addition, organizations providing related services to the industry, such as universities, research institutions, and U.S. civil nuclear trade associations, are eligible for participation. The mission will help U.S. participants gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and identify or advance specific projects with the goal of increasing U.S. civil nuclear exports to a wide variety of countries interested in nuclear energy.

    The schedule includes: Meetings with foreign delegations and discussions with senior U.S. Government officials on important civil nuclear topics including regulatory, technology and standards, liability, public acceptance, export controls, financing, infrastructure development, and R&D cooperation. Past U.S. Industry Programs have included participation by the U.S. Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and senior U.S. Government officials from the Departments of Commerce, Energy, State, the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the National Security Council.

    There are significant opportunities for U.S. businesses in the global civil nuclear energy market. With 55 reactors currently under construction in 15 countries and 160 nuclear plant projects planned in 27 countries over the next 8-10 years, this translates to a market demand for equipment and services totaling $500-740 billion over the next ten years. This mission contributes to DOC's Civil Nuclear Trade Initiative by assisting U.S. businesses in entering or expanding in international markets.

    Mission Setting

    The IAEA General Conference is the premier global meeting of civil nuclear policymakers, and typically attracts over 1,200 senior officials and industry representatives from all 162 IAEA Member States. As such, it is an opportunity to highlight the breadth and depth of the U.S. civil nuclear sector to foreign energy policymakers and potential customers. The U.S. Industry Program will provide opportunities for U.S. industry representatives to meet with U.S. Government representatives and discuss key issues of interest for civil nuclear exporters. The program will also feature briefings from foreign government representatives, providing opportunities for participants to develop contacts in potential export markets.

    Mission Goals

    The purpose of the U.S. Industry Program is to highlight the benefits of U.S. civil nuclear technology to foreign decision makers in key export markets and to enable representatives from the U.S. public and private sector to discuss U.S. industry's role in the safe and secure expansion of civil nuclear power worldwide. U.S. participants will also have the opportunity to network and build relationships in the global civil nuclear sector, interact with foreign government and industry officials, and learn more about current and future project opportunities. Foreign government participants will hear about the expertise that U.S. industry has amassed in this sector and may learn how to better partner with U.S. industry on future nuclear power projects.

    Mission Scenario

    On Sunday September 16, trade mission participants will have one-on-one meetings with visiting ITA staff from top export markets as part of ITA's Showtime Program (meetings are subject to availability of visiting ITA staff) and an evening U.S. Industry Welcome Reception. On Monday, September 17, mission participants will begin with a Policymaker's Roundtable and an interagency U.S. Government briefing featuring discussion sessions and remarks by senior officials from the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Energy and State, and the NRC. In addition, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, meetings with foreign delegation officials from some of the top markets for U.S. civil nuclear exports will be scheduled. Approximately ten such meetings will be planned throughout the duration of the event. Throughout the weeklong conference, participants can attend IAEA side meetings using their official IAEA badges, which will be provided as part of the program.

    Event Dates and Proposed Agenda ****Note that specific events and meeting times have yet to be confirmed**** Sunday, September 16 3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. 1-1 Showtime Meetings with visiting ITA Staff 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. U.S. Industry Welcome Reception Monday, September 17 7:00 a.m. Industry Program Breakfast Begins 8:00-9:45 a.m. U.S. Policymakers Roundtable 9:45-10:00 a.m. Break 10:00-11:00 a.m. USG Dialogue with Industry 11:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. IAEA Side Events 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Break 12:30-6:00 p.m. Country Briefings for Industry (presented by foreign delegates) 7:30-9:30 p.m. U.S. Mission to the IAEA Reception Tuesday, September 18 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Country Briefings for Industry (presented by foreign delegates) 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. IAEA Side Event Meetings Wednesday, September 19 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Country Briefings for Industry (presented by foreign delegates) 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. IAEA Side Event Meetings Participation Requirements

    Applicants must sign and submit a completed Trade Mission application form and satisfy all of the conditions of participation in order to be eligible for consideration. Applications will be evaluated on the applicant's ability to best satisfy the participation criteria. A minimum of 15 and maximum of 50 companies and/or trade associations and/or U.S. academic and research institutions will be selected to participate in the mission. The first fifteen applicants will be permitted to send two representatives per organization (if desired). After the first fifteen applicants, additional representatives will be permitted only if space is available. The Department of Commerce will evaluate applications and inform applicants of selection decisions [three weeks after publication in the Federal Register] and on a rolling basis thereafter until the maximum number of participants has been selected.

    Conditions for Participation

    Applicants must submit a completed mission application signed by a company, trade association, or academic or research institution official, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the organization's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the DOC receives an incomplete application, the DOC may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account in its evaluation.

    Each applicant must certify one's organization is not majority-owned or -controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities). Each applicant also must certify that the products or services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have demonstrable U.S. content as a percentage of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association, the applicant must certify that it will only be representing companies during the Trade Mission consistent with the domestic content criteria laid out in this section. In the case of an academic or research institution, the applicant must certify that as part of its activities at the event, it will represent the interests of the organization's staff that meet the criteria above.

    Applicants must:

    • Certify that the products and services that it wishes to market through the mission would be in compliance with U.S. export controls and regulations;

    • Certify that it has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office in the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • Certify that it has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    • Sign and submit an agreement that it and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with a company's/participant's involvement in this mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and

    • Certify that it meets the minimum requirements as stated in this announcement.

    Applicants from a company, organization or institution that is majority-owned or -controlled by a foreign government entity will not be considered for participation in the U.S. Industry Program.

    Selection Criteria

    Selection will be based on the following criteria:

    • Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') products or services to each of the markets the company or organization has expressed an interest in exporting to as part of this trade mission.

    • The company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') potential for business in each of the markets the company or organization has expressed an interest in exporting to as part of this trade mission, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.

    • Consistency of the applicant company's (or, in the case of another organization, represented companies' or constituents') goals and objectives with the stated mission scope.

    Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and will not be considered.

    Timeframe for Recruitment and Participation

    Recruitment for participation in the U.S. Industry Program as a representative of the U.S. civil nuclear industry will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register, posting on the DOC trade mission calendar, notices to industry trade associations and other multiplier groups. Recruitment will begin after publication in the Federal Register and conclude no later than August 3, 2018. The ITA will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis thereafter. Applications received after August 3, 2018, will be considered only if space and scheduling permit.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a company or organization has been selected to participate on the mission, a payment to the DOC in the form of a participation fee is required. The fee covers ITA support to register U.S. industry participants for the IAEA General Conference. Participants will be able to take advantage of discounted rates for hotel rooms.

    • The fee to participate in the event is $2,700 for a large company and $2,266 for a small or medium-sized company (SME), a trade association, or a U.S. university or research institution. The fee for each additional representative (large company, trade association, university/research institution, or SME) is $1,100.

    • To apply to the mission, complete the trade mission application at https://emenuapps.ita.doc.gov/ePublic/TM/8R0V.

    Participants selected for the Trade Mission will be expected to pay for the cost of all personal expenses, including, but not limited to, international travel, lodging, meals, transportation, communication, and incidentals, unless otherwise noted. In the event that the Mission is canceled, no personal expenses paid in anticipation of a Trade Mission will be reimbursed. However, participation fees for a canceled Trade Mission will be reimbursed to the extent they have not already been expended in the anticipation of the Mission.

    Contacts

    Jonathan Chesebro, DOC, ITA, Industry & Analysis, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-1297, Email: [email protected].

    Devin Horne, DOC, ITA, Industry & Analysis, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-0775, Email: [email protected].

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Man Cho, Deputy Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16099 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-967] Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. We determine that 25 of the companies for which an administrative review was requested, and not withdrawn, failed to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate; therefore, each is part of the China-wide entity. We also determine that Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR covered by this administrative review.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Scott or Mark Flessner, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-6312, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Commerce initiated this review on July 6, 2017.1 On February 8, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.2 At that time, we invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 3 On March 13, 2018, we received case briefs from the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee (the petitioner) 4 and Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Co., and Regal Ideas Inc. (collectively, Xin Wei/Regal).5 On March 19, 2018, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner 6 and Tai-Ao Aluminium (Taishan) Co., Ltd. (Tai-Ao).7 No other party submitted case or rebuttal briefs. These final results cover 29 companies for which an administrative review was initiated and not rescinded.8

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 31292 (July 6, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Review in Part; 2016-2017, 83 FR 5604 (February 8, 2018) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying preliminary decision memorandum (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    3See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 5606; see also 19 CFR 351.309.

    4See Petitioner Letter re: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief, dated March 13, 2018.

    5See Xin Wei/Regal Letter re: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief, dated March 13, 2018.

    6See Petitioner Letter re: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief, dated March 19, 2018.

    7See Tai-Ao Letter re: Tai-Ao's Administrative Rebuttal Brief: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Review Period—5/1/16-4/30/17, dated March 19, 2018.

    8 Initially, this administrative review covered 220 companies. See Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 31294. However, Commerce rescinded this administrative review with respect to 191 companies for which all review requests were timely withdrawn. See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 5604, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the Order9 is aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms, produced by an extrusion process, made from aluminum alloys having metallic elements corresponding to the alloy series designations published by The Aluminum Association commencing with the numbers 1, 3, and 6 (or proprietary equivalents or other certifying body equivalents).10

    9See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 30650 (May 26, 2011) (the Order).

    10 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see Memorandum, “Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China; 2016-2017,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6603.90.8100, 7616.99.51, 8479.89.94, 8481.90.9060, 8481.90.9085, 9031.90.9195, 8424.90.9080, 9405.99.4020, 9031.90.90.95, 7616.10.90.90, 7609.00.00, 7610.10.00, 7610.90.00, 7615.10.30, 7615.10.71, 7615.10.91, 7615.19.10, 7615.19.30, 7615.19.50, 7615.19.70, 7615.19.90, 7615.20.00, 7616.99.10, 7616.99.50, 8479.89.98, 8479.90.94, 8513.90.20, 9403.10.00, 9403.20.00, 7604.21.00.00, 7604.29.10.00, 7604.29.30.10, 7604.29.30.50, 7604.29.50.30, 7604.29.50.60, 7608.20.00.30, 7608.20.00.90, 8302.10.30.00, 8302.10.60.30, 8302.10.60.60, 8302.10.60.90, 8302.20.00.00, 8302.30.30.10, 8302.30.30.60, 8302.41.30.00, 8302.41.60.15, 8302.41.60.45, 8302.41.60.50, 8302.41.60.80, 8302.42.30.10, 8302.42.30.15, 8302.42.30.65, 8302.49.60.35, 8302.49.60.45, 8302.49.60.55, 8302.49.60.85, 8302.50.00.00, 8302.60.90.00, 8305.10.00.50, 8306.30.00.00, 8414.59.60.90, 8415.90.80.45, 8418.99.80.05, 8418.99.80.50, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.10.00, 8422.90.06.40, 8473.30.20.00, 8473.30.51.00, 8479.90.85.00, 8486.90.00.00, 8487.90.00.80, 8503.00.95.20, 8508.70.00.00, 8515.90.20.00, 8516.90.50.00, 8516.90.80.50, 8517.70.00.00, 8529.90.73.00, 8529.90.97.60, 8536.90.80.85, 8538.10.00.00, 8543.90.88.80, 8708.29.50.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8803.30.00.60, 9013.90.50.00, 9013.90.90.00, 9401.90.50.81, 9403.90.10.40, 9403.90.10.50, 9403.90.10.85, 9403.90.25.40, 9403.90.25.80, 9403.90.40.05, 9403.90.40.10, 9403.90.40.60, 9403.90.50.05, 9403.90.50.10, 9403.90.50.80, 9403.90.60.05, 9403.90.60.10, 9403.90.60.80, 9403.90.70.05, 9403.90.70.10, 9403.90.70.80, 9403.90.80.10, 9403.90.80.15, 9403.90.80.20, 9403.90.80.41, 9403.90.80.51, 9403.90.80.61, 9506.11.40.80, 9506.51.40.00, 9506.51.60.00, 9506.59.40.40, 9506.70.20.90, 9506.91.00.10, 9506.91.00.20, 9506.91.00.30, 9506.99.05.10, 9506.99.05.20, 9506.99.05.30, 9506.99.15.00, 9506.99.20.00, 9506.99.25.80, 9506.99.28.00, 9506.99.55.00, 9506.99.60.80, 9507.30.20.00, 9507.30.40.00, 9507.30.60.00, 9507.90.60.00, and 9603.90.80.50.

    The subject merchandise entered as parts of other aluminum products may be classifiable under the following additional Chapter 76 subheadings: 7610.10, 7610.90, 7615.19, 7615.20, and 7616.99, as well as under other HTSUS chapters. In addition, fin evaporator coils may be classifiable under HTSUS numbers: 8418.99.80.50 and 8418.99.80.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.11

    11See the Order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated herein by reference. A list of the issues which any party raised, and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the treatment of Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd.12

    12See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    We find that a certification of no shipments on behalf of Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. satisfied the requirements of section 351.213(d)(3) of Commerce's regulations that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, we determine that Guangdong Xin Wei Aluminum Products Co., Ltd., Xin Wei Aluminum Company Limited, and Xin Wei Aluminum Co. Ltd. made no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR covered by this administrative review. Consequently, these companies' separate rates remain unchanged from the last administrative review.

    China-Wide Entity

    For the purposes of the final results of this administrative review, we continue to find that the following entities are part of the China-wide entity because they failed to submit both a response to Commerce's quantity and value questionnaire and information to establish eligibility for a separate rate: (1) Activa International Inc.; (2) Atlas Integrated Manufacturing Ltd.; (3) Belton (Asia) Development Ltd.; (4) Belton (Asia) Development Limited; (5) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co., Ltd.; (6) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Accessories Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; (7) Changzhou Tenglong Auto Parts Co Ltd; (8) China Square; (9) China Square Industrial Co.; (10) China Square Industrial Ltd; (11) Daya Hardware Co Ltd; (12) ETLA Technology (Wuxi) Co. Ltd; (13) Global Hi-Tek Precision Co. Ltd; (14) Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; (15) Guangdong Zhongya Aluminium Company Limited; (16) Henan New Kelong Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.; (17) Liaoning Zhongwang Group Co., Ltd.; (18) Liaoyang Zhongwang Aluminum Profile Co. Ltd.; (19) Midea International Training Co., Ltd.; (20) Midea International Trading Co., Ltd.; (21) Shenyang Yuanda Aluminum Industry Engineering Co. Ltd.; (22) Sincere Profit Limited; (23) Summit Heat Sinks Metal Co, Ltd; (24) USA Worldwide Door Components (PINGHU) Co., Ltd.; (25) Whirlpool Canada L.P.; and (26) Whirlpool Microwave Products Development Ltd.13

    13See Preliminary Results, 83 FR at 5606.

    Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.14 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity in the instant review, the entity is not under review, and the entity's current rate, i.e., 86.01 percent,15 is not subject to change.

    14See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65970 (November 4, 2013).

    15See Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 52265, 52267 (November 13, 2017).

    Adjustments for Countervailable Subsidies

    Because no company established eligibility for an adjustment under section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies, for these final results, Commerce did not make an adjustment pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act for countervailable domestic subsidies for separate-rate recipients. Furthermore, because the China-wide entity is not under review, we made no adjustment for countervailable export subsidies for the China-wide entity pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

    Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review in the Federal Register. Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.16

    16See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the exporter was reviewed; (2) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the China-wide entity, which is 86.01 percent; and (3) for all non-Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter with the subject merchandise. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing notice of these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and sections 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5) of Commerce's regulations.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Adjustment of Liquidation Instructions Comment 2: Xin Wei/Regal Separate Rate 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-16071 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) continues to find that manufacturers/exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) sold solar products at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Pedersen and Krisha Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2769 and (202) 482-4037.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 9, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2015-2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on solar cells from the People's Republic of China (China).1 For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see Commerce's Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016, 83 FR 1018 (January 9, 2018) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, From the People's Republic of China,” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Commerce has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22, 2018.3 On May 8, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 60 days,4 postponing the final results until July 11, 2018.

    3See Memorandum, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government,” dated January 23, 2018 (Tolling Memorandum). All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.

    4See Memorandum, “2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated May 8, 2018.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.5 Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. Although these HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Affiliation and Single Entity Determination

    We preliminarily found that 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./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. are affiliated with Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd., pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act and that all of these companies should be treated as a single entity, i.e., Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (Trina), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1)-(2).6 No interested party has disputed this treatment, and so these findings remain unchanged for these final results.

    6See Preliminary Results and accompanying PDM at 6.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results  7

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum at comments 2 and 10.

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made revisions to our preliminary calculations of the weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondent Trina.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that the following eight companies had no shipments during the POR: De-Tech Trading Limited HK, Dongguan Sunworth Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd., Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd., Shenzhen Sungold Solar Co., Ltd., Taizhou BD Trade Co., Ltd., Toenergy Technology Hangzhou Co., Ltd., and Wuxi Tianran Photovoltaic Co., Ltd.8 We did not receive comments from interested parties regarding our preliminary finding on no shipments. Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, we completed the review with respect to the above-named companies. Based on the certifications submitted by the aforementioned companies, and our analysis of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) information,9 we continue to determine that these companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. As noted in the “Assessment” section below, Commerce will issue appropriate instructions with respect to these companies to CBP based on our Final Results.10 In addition, these companies will maintain their rate from the most recent segment in which they participated.

    8See Preliminary Results, 83 FR 1018.

    9See PDM at 4-5.

    10See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties); see also the “Assessment” section of this notice, below.

    Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that evidence provided by Trina and 21 other companies/company groups supported finding an absence of both de jure and de facto government control, and, therefore, we preliminarily granted a separate rate to each of these companies/company groups.11 We received no information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides a basis for reconsidering these determinations with respect to the separate rate status of these 22 companies/company groups. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that these entities are eligible for separate rates.

    11See Preliminary Results, 83 FR 1018; see also PDM at 11-12.

    Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • 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./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Trina Solar (Hefei) Science and Technology Co., Ltd 15.85 Anji DaSol Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd 15.85 Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 15.85 ET Solar Energy Limited 15.85 Hangzhou Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd 15.85 Hengdian Group DMEGC Magnetics Co. Ltd 15.85 JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd 15.85 Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 15.85 JingAo Solar Co., Ltd 15.85 LERRI Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (aka LONGi Solar Technology Co. Ltd.) 15.85 Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd 15.85 Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 15.85 Risen Energy Co., Ltd 15.85 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 15.85 Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd 15.85 Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd 15.85 Sunpreme Jiaxing Ltd 15.85 tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 15.85 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd/Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd 15.85 Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited/Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd./Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd./Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 15.85 Zhejiang ERA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 15.85 Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company 15.85

    Commerce's change in policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.12 Under this policy, the China-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, we did not conduct a review of the China-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent) is not subject to change as a result of this review.13

    12See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    13See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015, 82 FR 29033 (June 27, 2017).

    Assessment

    Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these Final Results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-)specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), Commerce will calculate importer- (or customer-)specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce calculated importer- (or customer-)specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to the importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to the importer (or customer).14 Where Commerce calculated an importer- (or customer-)specific weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to the importer (or customer) by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, Commerce will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-)specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.15 Where an importer- (or customer-)specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer- (or customer-)specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.16

    14See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    15Id.

    16See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 2012).

    For merchandise whose sale/entry was not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by an exporter individually examined during this review, but that entered under the case number of that exporter (i.e., at the individually-examined exporter's cash deposit rate), Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the China-wide rate. Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.17

    17See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011), for a full discussion of this practice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the Final Results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed for each exporter in the table in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice, except if the rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), then the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated Chinese and non-Chinese exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 238.95 percent); and (4) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Chinese exporter that supplied the non-Chinese exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these Final Results within five days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: July 11, 2018. Gary Taverman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1. Whether Commerce Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available to Trina's Unreported Factors of Production for Purchased Solar Cells Comment 2. Ministerial Error Allegations Comment 3. Whether Commerce Should Adjust the U.S. Price for “USDUTYU” Expenses Comment 4. Whether Commerce Should Include Trina's Sale to a Salvage Company in the Margin Calculation Comment 5. Whether Commerce Should Adjust U.S. Price for the Export Buyer's Credits Program Comment 6. Zero-Quantity Import Data Comment 7. Surrogate Value for Aluminum Frames Comment 8. Surrogate Value for International Freight Comment 9. Surrogate Value for Nitrogen Comment 10. Selection of Surrogate Financial Statements Comment 11. Surrogate Value for Labor Comment 12. Separate Rate Status for LONGi Solar Technology Co. Ltd. Comment 13. Differential Pricing Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2018-16072 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-869] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from India for the period of review (POR) February 2, 2017, through February 28, 2018.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4852.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 5, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the AD order on OTR Tires from India for the period February 2, 2017, through February 28, 2018.1 On March 30, 2018, ATC Tires Private Limited (ATC) and Alliance Tires Americas, Inc. (ATA) (collectively ATC) timely requested that Commerce conduct an administrative review of this AD order with respect to ATC.2 No other party requested a review of the order. On May 2, 2018, Commerce initiated an administrative review with respect to ATC, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).3 On May 17, 2018, ATC timely withdrew its request for an administrative review.4 No other party requested a review of ATC.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty, Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 83 FR 9284 (March 5, 2018).

    2See Letter from ATC, “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: ATC Tires Private Limited's Request for Administrative Review,” dated March 30, 2018.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 19215 (May 2, 2018).

    4See Letter from ATC, “Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: ATC Tires Private Limited's Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated May 17, 2018.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, ATC timely withdrew its request for review within 90 days of the publication date of the Initiation Notice. Because Commerce received no other request for a review of the AD order with respect to ATC, and no other requests were made for a review of the AD order with respect to other companies, we are rescinding this administrative review covering the period February 2, 2017, through February 28, 2018, in its entirety, in accordance with 19 CFR 213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of OTR Tires from India during the POR. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 23, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16074 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-979] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable July 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Krisha Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4037.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 7, 2012, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the People's Republic of China (China) (Order).1 On December 4, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order.2 Commerce received multiple timely requests for an administrative review of the Order. On February 23, 2018, in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of an administrative review of the Order.3 The administrative review was initiated with respect to 45 companies or groups of companies, and covers the period from December 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017. All parties have subsequently timely withdrawn their requests to review the group 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./Turpan Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd./Hubei Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (collectively, Trina).4

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 73018 (December 7, 2012).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 57219 (December 4, 2017).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 83 FR 8058 (February 23, 2018) (Initiation Notice).

    4See Letter from SolarWorld Americas, Inc., “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review and Request for Selection of Additional Mandatory Respondent,” dated April 5, 2018; see also Letter from Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd., Yancheng Trina Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd., and Changzhou Trina Solar Yabang Energy Co., Ltd., “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China—Withdrawal of Request for Review,” dated April 4, 2018.

    Rescission of Review, in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All parties withdrew their requests for an administrative review of Trina within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. Accordingly, Commerce is rescinding this review with respect to Trina, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all subject merchandise exported by Trina and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period of review at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 23, 2018. James Maeder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16073 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG320 Marine Mammals; File No. 21678 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research Collective, Waterstreet Building Suite 201, 2181/2 West Fourth Ave., Olympia, WA 98501, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on marine mammals.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 21678 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hubard or Sara Young, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.).

    The applicant proposes to continue long-term studies of marine mammals in the eastern North Pacific. Research would be conducted primarily along the west coast of the United States from the Mexico border to Canada, but may also occur in Alaskan waters and international waters of the Pacific Ocean. Twenty-four cetacean species would be studied, including these listed as endangered or threatened: Blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident killer (Orcinus orca), North Pacific right (Eubalaena japonica), sei (B. borealis), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whales. Research methods vary by species, but would include vessel surveys, aerial surveys, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), photo-identification, behavioral observations, passive acoustic recordings, underwater photography, sampling (breath, skin, feces, skin/blubber), prey mapping, and suction cup and dart tagging. Five species of pinnipeds, including Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) would also be studied, primarily at haul out areas in Puget Sound, WA. Seals and sea lions may be disturbed during abundance counts, scat collection, and UAS flights. The research would examine population size and trends, habitat use, social structure, range, movement patterns and rates, diving behavior, diet, ecology, behavior and the impacts of human activities on marine mammals. The permit would be valid for five years.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16057 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published a document in the Federal Register of July 20, 2018, concerning a notice of Proposed Addition and Deletions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2018, in FR Doc. 2018-15571 (83 FR 140), the Committee would like to correct the notice for “Procurement List, Proposed Addition and Deletions” to replace the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:

    Procurement List; Proposed Addition to and Deletions
    AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: August 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service Service Type: Document Destruction Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center, 3990 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Greene, Inc., Xenia, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Contracting SVCS OFF, Columbus Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6230-01-617-3776—Kit, Safety Flare, Programmable Flicker Pattern, Red LED, 8in Diameter, AA Battery Operated 6230-01-617-6959—Kit, Safety Flare, Programmable Flicker Pattern, Red LED, 8in Diameter, Rechargeable Power Unit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tarrant County Association for the Blind, Fort Worth, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6545-07-000-0762—USMC Individual First Aid Kit, Complete 6545-09-000-2727—Minor First Aid Kit, USMC Individual First Aid Kit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Chautauqua County Chapter, NYSARC, Jamestown, NY Contracting Activity: Commander, Quantico, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-502-3285—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Small-Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3287—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Medium-Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3288—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Large-Regular, Green 8415-01-502-3289—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Large-Long, Green 8415-01-502-3290—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Extra Large-Regular 8415-01-502-3292—Silk/Lightweight Drawers, Size Extra Large-Long, G 8415-01-502-3321—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Short—Regular 8415-01-502-3322—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Medium—Regular 8415-01-502-3324—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Size Large—Regular 8415-01-502-3325—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Extra Large—Regular 8415-01-502-3328—Green, Midweight Undershirt, Large—Long 8415-01-502-3341—Green, Midweight Undershirt, X-Large—Long 8415-01-502-4366—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Small-Regular, 8415-01-502-4368—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Medium-Regular, 8415-01-502-4370—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Large-Regular, 8415-01-502-4371—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Large-Long, Green 8415-01-502-4373—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Extra Large-Reg 8415-01-502-4375—Silk/Lightweight Undershirts, Size Extra Large-Long Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI, Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-01-230-0219—Bracket, Angle with Four Holes, Abrams M-1 Tank, Green 5340-01-386-2917—Bracket, Angle, Command AAVC-7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicle 5340-01-112-9693—Bracket, Angle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-525-0579—Bracket, Angle, Right Side, Medium Tactical Vehicles 5340-01-102-3483—Bracket, Angle with Two Holes, Abrams M-1 Tank 5340-01-525-0574—Bracket, Angle, Left Side, Medium Tactical Vehicles 5340-01-519-7318—Bracket, Angle, Truck 11/4 Ton HMMWV Vehicle System 5340-01-162-7040—Bracket, Angle, Personnel M113A1, M113-A2, M-113A3 Armored Carrier 5340-01-163-4245—Bracket, Double Angle, Hercules M88A2 Recovery Vehicle 5340-01-288-5231—Bracket, Double Angle, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-167-1810—Bracket, Mounting, Personnel M113A1, M113-A2, M-113A3 Armored Carrier 5340-01-329-8589—Bracket, Mounting, Bradley Fighting Vehicle System 5340-01-084-1232—Bracket, Mounting, Cargo Truck 5340-01-500-4197—Bracket, Mounting, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Fighting Vehicle 5340-00-627-5411—Bracket, Mounting, Stratofortress B-52 Aircraft 5340-01-347-9608—Bracket, Mounting, F-16 Aircraft 5340-00-602-4977—Bracket, Mounting, Hercules M88A2 Recovery Vehicle 5340-01-272-6634—Bracket, Mounting, Truck 11/4 Ton HMMWV Vehicle System 5340-01-098-5119—Bracket, Mounting, Howitzer M-109 5340-01-078-7642—Bracket, Mounting, Abrams M-1 Tank 5340-01-521-0196—Bracket, Mounting, Non-Weapons System 5340-01-458-0473—Bracket, Mounting, M-16 Rifle 5.56MM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6840-00-NIB-0039—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Original Scent 6840-00-NIB-0040—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Fresh Scent 6840-00-NIB-0041—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Country Scent 6840-00-NIB-0042—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Crisp Linen Scent 6840-00-NIB-0043—Disinfectant Spray, Aerosol, Lysol Brand III, Spring Waterfall Scent Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: USPS, Mail Transportation Equipment Center: 7600 West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lester and Rosalie ANIXTER CENTER, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Naval Air Reserve Center, 6201 32nd Avenue, Minneapolis, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: AccessAbility, Inc., Minneapolis, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Laundry Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Aviation Support Command: CMPSC Commissary, Granite City, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northeregion Contract Ofc Dated: July 24, 2018. Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16105 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds services to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Date added to the Procurement List: August 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/18/2018 (83 FR 97) and 6/15/2018 (83 FR 116), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the services to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Safety & Environment Department, Forest Glen Annex, Buildings 500, 501, 503, 508, 509, 511 & the Temporary Phasing Facilities, 503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: MVLE, Inc., Springfield, VA Contracting Activity: Dept Of The Army, W4PZ USA MED RSCH ACQUIS ACT Service Type: Facilities Operation and Maintenance Service Mandatory for: National Institutes of Health, NIH Animal Center, 16701 Elmer School Road, Dickerson, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Skookum Educational Programs, Bremerton, WA Contracting Activity: National Institutes of Health, NIH A E Construction Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16106 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product and service previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: August 26, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 603-2117, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Service Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Cannon Air Force Base, 110 Alison Avenue, Cannon AFB, NM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4855 27 SOCONS LGC Deletions

    The following product and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-00-NSH-6369—Knee Length, X Large Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Human Technologies Corporation, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: AMS 31C3, Washington, DC Service Service Type: Ground Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Niagara Falls International Airport: 914th Tactical Airlift Group (AFRES), Niagara Falls, NY Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: DEPT of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Michael R. Jurkowski, Business Management Specialist, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16109 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Renewal of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Army Education Advisory Committee (“the Committee”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee's charter is being renewed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The Committee's charter and contact information for the Committee's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be found at http://www.facadatabase.gov/.

    The Committee provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations on Army educational matters, pertaining to the educational doctrinal, and research policies and activities of the U.S. Army's educational programs, to include the U.S. Army's joint professional military education programs. The committee will access and provide independent advice and recommendations across the spectrum of educational policies, school curricula, educational philosophy and objectives, program effectiveness, facilities, staff and faculty, instructional methods, and other aspects of the organization and management of these programs. In addition, the Committee will provide independent advice and recommendations on matters pertaining to the Army Historical Program and the role and mission of the U.S. Army Center of Military History, particularly as they pertain to the study and use of military history in Army schools.

    The Committee is composed of no more than 15 members and will include the following: a. Not more than 13 individuals who are eminent authorities in the fields of defense, management, leadership, and academia, including those who are deemed to be historical scholars; b. the Chief Historian of the Army, U.S. Army, Center of Military History; and c. the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 for U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, who will serve as a non-voting member of the Committee. All members of the Committee are appointed to provide advice on behalf of the Government on the basis of their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official Committee-related travel and per diem, Committee members serve without compensation.

    The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Committee membership about the Committee's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Committee. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Committee, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16049 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0027] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Security Service, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interest; SF328; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Type of Request: New.

    Number of Respondents: 2,123.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,123.

    Average Burden per Response: 70 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,476.8.

    Needs and Uses: Completion of the SF 328 (which will be designated as a Common Form allowing its use by other federal agencies) and submission of supporting documentation (e.g., company or entity charter documents, board meeting minutes, stock or securities information, descriptions of organizational structures, contracts, sales, leases and/or loan agreements and revenue documents, annual reports and income statements, etc.) is part of the eligibility determination for access to classified information and/or issuance of a Facility Clearance.

    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Not-For-Profit Institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16034 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2018-OS-0025] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-Day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Data for Payment of Retired Personnel; DD Form 2656; OMB Control Number 0704-0569.

    Type of Request: Revision.

    Number of Respondents: 66,800.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 66,800.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 16,700.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain applicable retirement information from Uniformed Service members and allow those members to make certain retired pay and survivor annuity elections prior to retirement from service or prior to reaching eligibility to receive retired pay. The form will also allow eligible members covered by the Blended Retirement System to make a voluntary election of a partial lump sum of retired pay, as required by Section 1415 of title 10, United States Code.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16033 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2015-OS-0054] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    30-day information collection notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer, Docket ID number, and title of the information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Application for Surrogate Association for DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon; DD Form x683; OMB Control Number 0704-0559.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 5,000.

    Average Burden Per Response: 2 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 167.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to establish a Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) record and surrogate association for issuance of a DoD Self-Service (DS) Logon. A surrogate may be established: (1) As the custodian of an unmarried minor child(ren) of a deceased Service member who is under age 18, who is at least 18 but under 23 and attending school full-time, or who is incapacitated. (2) As the agent of an incapacitated dependent (e.g., spouse, parent). (3) As the agent of a wounded, ill, or incapacitated Service member.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at [email protected]

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16043 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the inventions listed below, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg. 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email [email protected], 812-854-2777.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 9,987,996 (Navy Case No. 200223): VEHICLE WITH AT LEAST ONE MULTIPURPOSE EQUIPMENT ITEM MOUNTED ON A WINCH AND ASSOCIATED METHODS OF USE//Patent No. 10,001,417 (Navy Case No. 2001416): ADAPTIVE HEAT FLOW CALORIMETER//and Patent No. 10,006,770 (Navy Case No. 200402): REMOTE LOCATION DETERMINATION SYSTEM.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. James Edward Mosimann III, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16017 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket ID ED-2017-FSA-0047] Privacy Act of 1974; Matching Program AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new matching program.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a Notice of a new matching program between the Department of Education (ED) and the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). This is a new matching notice upon expiration of the previously published 18-month Computer Matching agreement August 1, 2017. It was originally established on February 1, 2010.

    DATES:

    Submit your comments on the proposed matching program or before August 27, 2018.

    The matching program will go into effect at the later of the following two dates: (1) The date of the last signatory to this CMA as set forth in Article XIX, below, or (2) 30 days after the publication of this notice on July 27, 2018, unless the matching notice needs to be changed as a result of public comment. The Department will publish any changes resulting from public comment.

    The matching program will continue for 18 months after the applicable date and may be extended for an additional 12 months, if the respective agency Data Integrity Boards (DIBS) determine that the conditions specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(o)(2)(D) have been met. The life of this CMA is estimated to cover the 18-month period from August 28, 2018 through February 27, 2020.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under the “help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments, address them to Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-5345.

    Privacy Note: ED's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Marya Dennis, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, Union Center Plaza, 830 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-5345. Telephone: (202) 377-3385.

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We provide this notice in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a (commonly known as the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended); Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, 54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989); and OMB Circular A-108, 81 FR 94424 (December 23, 2016).

    Under sections 420R and 473(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1070h and 20 U.S.C. 1087mm(b)), the Secretary of Defense must provide the Secretary of Education with information to identify the children of military personnel who have died as a result of their military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, to determine if the child is eligible for increased amounts of title IV, HEA program assistance. DoD and ED have determined that matching records contained in the DoD DMDC system and the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) against ED's Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01) is the only practical method that the agencies can use to meet the statutory requirements of the HEA.

    The prior Computer Matching Agreement (CMA) was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2017 (82 FR 29856). ED and DoD are now re-establishing the CMA through this notice.

    Participating Agencies

    ED and DoD.

    Authority for Conducting the Matching Program

    Sections 420R and 473(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070h and 20 U.S.C. 1087mm(b)) and 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Purpose(s)

    This matching program identifies children whose parent or guardian was a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and died as a result of performing military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. These children (referred to as qualifying students) may be eligible for a greater amount of title IV, HEA program assistance. A qualifying student must have been age 24 or younger at the time of the parent's or guardian's death, or, if older than 24, enrolled part-time or full-time in an institution of higher education at the time of the parent's or guardian's death. Beginning July 1, 2010, students who are otherwise qualified children of deceased U.S. military who meet the requirements of section 420R of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1070h) may also be eligible for higher amounts of title IV, HEA program assistance.

    Categories of Individuals

    The individuals whose records are included in this matching program are dependents of service personnel who died as a result of performing their military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, which records are located in the DoD DMDC and DEERS systems, and all students who complete a Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

    Categories of Records

    DoD uses the following data elements in this matching program: Dependent's Name, Date of Birth and SSN—extracted from DEERS; and Parent or Guardian's Date of Death—extracted from DMDC Data Base.

    ED uses the SSN, date of birth, and the first two letters of an applicant's last name to match applicant records.

    System(s) of Records

    ED system of records: Federal Student Aid Application File (18-11-01) (76 FR 46774, August 3, 2011).

    DoD system of records: DMDC 01, Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base (76 FR 72391) (November 23, 2011), and DMDC 02 DoD Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS) (81 FR 49210) (July 27, 2016).

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

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

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

    James F. Manning, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16092 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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: PR18-52-001.

    Applicants: DTE Gas Company.

    Description: Tariff Filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Operating Statement Amendment to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 201807195053.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET7/30/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-67-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+(g)/.224: Revisions to Statement of Operating Conditions: to be effective 1/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 201807205000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET9/18/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-68-000.

    Applicants: DTE Gas Company.

    Description: Tariff Filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: DTE Gas Company Rate Filing to be effective 6/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 201807205136.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-985-000.

    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Compliance filing Incremental Rates 2017 Expansion Project to be effective 7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-986-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DECG—July 2018 Administrative Changes to be effective 8/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-987-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming—Atlantic Sunrise to be effective 8/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-988-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Central Penn Line—Tariff References to be effective 8/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-989-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Atlantic Sunrise Tariff Rate Filing to be effective 8/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-990-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: List of Non-Conforming Service Agreements (Atlantic Sunrise) to be effective 8/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 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 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16084 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2031-000] Hudson Shore Energy Partners LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of HUDSON SHORE ENERGY PARTNERS LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 8, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16083 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2833-108] Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, Washington; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests July 23, 2018.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Proposed Revisions to Whitewater Boating Take-Out Plan and Project Boundary.

    b. Project No: 2833-108.

    c. Date Filed: March 1 and 2, 2018, and supplemented on June 14, 2018.

    d. Applicant: Public Utility District No. 1 of Lewis County, Washington (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Cowlitz River in Lewis County Washington.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Joseph M. First, Project Superintendent, PUD No. 1 of Lewis County, P.O. Box 1387, Morton, WA 98356; (360) 497-5351.

    i. FERC Contact: Jon Cofrancesco at (202) 502-8951, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: August 22, 2018.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2833-108. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed an application proposing revisions to the project's whitewater boating take-out site plan approved by the Commission's Order Modifying and Approving Plan for Whitewater Boating Take-out Site issued June 22, 2006. The proposed revisions would make changes to the existing approved Cooper Canyon Creek Take-Out Site, including unlimited open-gate access to the take-out site, elimination of existing boater insurance requirements, elimination of the 1000-foot-long portage from the existing parking area to the entrance to the access road (340 spur road), additional parking at the take-out site, and changes to the project boundary associated with the 340 spur road and parking area. In addition, the licensee requests Commission approval of its conceptual plans to develop two alternate take-out sites in the area for use when the Cooper Canyon Creek Take-Out Site is inaccessible.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 202-502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call 202-502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”; “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16108 Filed 7-26-18; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG18-109-000.

    Applicants: Blue Summit Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Blue Summit Interconnection, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2043-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cooperative Energy NITSA Amendment (adding new Article 7) to be effective 8/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2044-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cooperative Energy Interconnection Agreement Amendment (adding Jasper East IP) to be effective 8/3/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2045-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 827 Agreement for Remediation with GFDA Agritech Park to be effective 7/23/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2046-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 4893, 4894, 4895, 4931, 4932 to be effective 9/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2047-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Filing of Permanent De-List Bids and Retirement De-List Bids for 2022-23 Forward Capacity Auction (FCA 13) of ISO New England, Inc.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2048-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to implement historic fixed price TCC extensions to be effective 9/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2049-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-07-20_Attachment X Revisions to Expedite Phase I of the DPP to be effective 9/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2050-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval of Affiliate Transaction Pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2051-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3283 NextEra Energy & Sunflower Meter Agent Agr Cancellation to be effective 7/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/23/18.

    Accession Number: 20180723-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/13/18.

    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 23, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16088 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-980-000.

    Applicants: Panther Interstate Pipeline Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: PIPE Resubmission of Tariff Cancellation Filing to be effective 7/17/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/17/18.

    Accession Number: 20180717-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-982-000.

    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate and Non-Conforming Agreements to be effective 7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180718-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-983-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—Exelon 8950525 eff 11-01-2018 to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180718-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-984-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Equitrans' Clean Up Filing—July 2018 to be effective 8/18/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180718-5115.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16081 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RD18-4-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725G2 1 ); Comment Request; Revision

    1 Commission staff is using the FERC-725G2 is a temporary “place holder” information collection for this 30-day notice. FERC-725G information collection (OMB Control No. 1902-0252) is pending review at OMB in an unrelated item and only one item per OMB Control No. can be pending OMB review at a time. In order to submit this timely, to OMB, we are using a temporary place holder.

    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 submitting its information collection, FERC-725G2 1 (Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System: PRC Reliability Standards) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register on May 16, 2018, requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-725G2 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.: 1902-0281, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-8528. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD18-4-000, 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-725G2, Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System: PRC Reliability Standards.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0281.

    Type of Request: Revision of FERC-725G2 information collection requirements as discussed in Docket No. RD18-4.

    Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725G2 is required to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). Section 215 of the FPA buttresses the Commission's efforts to strengthen the reliability of the interstate grid.

    On March 16, 2018, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC, the Commission-approved ERO) submitted for Commission approval proposed Reliability Standard PRC-025-2. Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 addresses setting load-responsive protective relays associated with generation facilities at a level to prevent unnecessary tripping of generators during a system disturbance for conditions that do not pose a risk of damage to the associated equipment. Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 also improves upon the retired Reliability Standard PRC-025-1 2 by addressing certain relay setting application issues and by clarifying certain terminology and references. NERC requested that the Commission approve the Reliability Standard and find that the approved standard is just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. NERC also requested that the Commission approve: (i) The associated Implementation Plan; (ii) the associated Violation Risk Factors (VRFs) and Violation Severity Levels (VSLs), which remain unchanged from Reliability Standard PRC-025-1; and (iii) the retirement of currently-effective Reliability Standard PRC-025-1.

    2http://www.nerc.net/standardsreports/standardssummary.aspx.

    Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 became effective on 7/1/2018, the first day of the first calendar quarter after the effective date of the applicable governmental authority's order approving the standard. NERC's Implementation Plan approved phased-in compliance dates after the effective date of Reliability Standard PRC-025-2.3

    3 See NERC's Implementation Plan at https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Project%20201604%20Modifications%20to%20PRC0251%20DL/Project_2016_04_Implementation_Plan_Clean_01092018.pdf.

    On May 2, 2018, pursuant to the relevant authority delegated to the Director, Office of Electric Reliability under 18 CFR 385.713 (2017) Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 and the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-025-1 was approved.

    Type of Respondents: Generator Owner (GO), Transmission Owner (TO), and Distribution Provider (DP).

    Estimate of Annual Burden:4 Details follow on the changes in Docket No. RD18-4-000 to Reliability Standard FERC-725G2.

    4 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.

    Net Effect to Burden for FERC-725G2: Due to the retirement of Reliability Standard PRC-025-1 and implementation of Reliability Standard PRC-025-2, the number of respondents is reduced by 25, and the number of annual burden hours is reduced by 550 hours. (The net changes are due to a change in the number of affected entities on the NERC Registry.) The burden per respondent for Reliability Standard PRC-025-2 remains 22 hours (total for both one-time and ongoing burden, similar to the now-retired Reliability Standard PRC-025-1.)

    FERC-725G2, Mandatory Reliability Standard PRC-025-2, in Docket No. RD18-4-000 Entity Number of
  • respondents 5
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • hours and cost per
  • response 6
  • ($)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours and
  • total annual cost
  • ($)
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) = (6) (One-time) Review & documentation of relay settings to ensure compliance 994 GO/TO/DP 1 994 20 hrs.; $1,298.20 19,880 hours; $1,290,410.80 $1,298.20 (On-going) Record Retention (of compliance records for R1 and M1, for 3 years or until mitigation complete) 994 GO/TO/DP 1 994 2 hrs.; $62.32 1,988 hours; $61,946.08 62.32

    5 According to the NERC compliance registry as of March 9, 2018, NERC has registered 415 distribution providers (DP), 985 generator owners (GO) and 336 transmission owners (TO). However, under NERC's compliance registration program, entities may be registered for multiple functions, so these numbers incorporate some double counting. The number of unique entities responding will be approximately 994 entities registered as a transmission owner, a distribution provider, or a generator owner that is also a transmission owner and/or a distribution owner. This estimate assumes all of the unique entities apply load-responsive protective relays.

    6 The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2017, for two positions involved in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These figures include salary (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are: Engineer: $64.91/hour, and File Clerk: $31.16/hour. Hourly cost for the engineer are used for the one-time costs, and hourly cost for the file clerk are used for the ongoing record retention.

    FERC-725G, Mandatory Reliability Standard PRC-025-1, Retirement in Docket No. RD18-4-000 Entity Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • hours and cost 7 per
  • response
  • ($)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours and
  • total annual cost
  • ($)
  • Cost per
  • respondent 8
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) = (6) (One-time) Review & documentation of relay settings to ensure compliance,(reduction) 1,019 GO/DP/TO 1 1,019 20 hrs.; $1,192.40 (reduction) 20,380 hours; $1,215,055.60 (reduction) $1,192.40 (reduction). (On-going) Record Retention (of compliance records for R1 and M1, for 3 years or until mitigation complete) (reduction) 1,019 GO/DP/TO 1 1,019 2 hrs.; $57.90 (reduction) 2,038 hours; $59,000.10 (reduction) 57.90 (reduction).

    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.

    7 GO = Generator Owner, DP = Distribution Provider, TO = Transmission Owner, each of which applies load-responsive protective relays at the terminals of the Elements listed in the proposed standard at section 3.2 (Facilities).

    8 The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) information May 2014, (at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm#17-0000) for an electrical engineer ($59.62/hour for review and documentation), and for a file clerk ($28.95/hour for record retention). Those figures (and the number of respondents) were used when the standard was approved and added to the OMB inventory. Hourly cost for the engineer are used for the one-time costs, and hourly cost for the file clerk are used for the ongoing record retention.

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16015 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ID-8512-000] Miller, Paul J.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 18, 2018, Paul J. Miller, submitted for filing an, application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) and section 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8 (2018).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2018.

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16086 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-523-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 13, 2018, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to (1) plug and abandon four injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells (Benton Well 9507 and Laurel Wells 9097, 9239, and 9285), (2) abandon and convert one I/W well to an observation well (Benton Well 7612), and (3) abandon associated pipelines and appurtenances located at Benton and Laurel Storage Fields in Hocking County, Ohio, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Linda Farquhar, Manager, Project Determinations & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, at (832) 320-5685 or fax (832) 320-6685 or [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16107 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2003-000] Lorenzo Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Lorenzo Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 9, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16078 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-13-000] Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Columbia Gas Transmission, Llc Line 8000 Replacement Project

    On November 3, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed an application in Docket No. CP18-13-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Sections 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Mineral County, West Virginia and Allegany County, Maryland. The proposed project is known as the Line 8000 Replacement Project (Project) and is part of Columbia's multi-year, comprehensive modernization program. The Project would not increase capacity and would continue to serve the Maryland distribution markets. According to Columbia, its Project would increase system reliability, thereby greatly reducing the risk of interruptions to Columbia's customers.

    On November 17, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—August 29, 2018 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—November 27, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The Line 8000 Replacement Project would consist of:

    • Replacement of about 13.25 miles of existing 12-inch-diameter bare steel pipeline, with approximately 13.54 miles of new, coated 12-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in five sections and four modification points along Line 8000 and Lateral Line 8006;

    • replacement of about 0.54 miles of existing 4-inch-diameter bare steel pipeline, with approximately 0.67 miles of new coated 4-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline along Lateral Lines 8225 and 8244;

    • installation of two new pig 1 launcher and receiver sites and four new mainline valves associated with pipeline facilities;

    1 A “pig” is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.

    • modifications/abandonment of three existing mainline valves and three existing side tap valve sites;

    • modification of tie-ins at two regulator stations; and

    • abandonment of 13 active residential taps and 109 inactive taps.

    Background

    On December 19, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Line 8000 Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc., Direct Energy Business Marketing, LLC, the West Virginia Division of Culture and History, the Maryland Department of Environment, and one landowner. The comments addressed the conversion to an alternate energy source for customers who would be affected by the abandonment of residential farm taps, the cost of the Project, cultural resources, air quality, stormwater and erosion, water resources, and land use. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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.

    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, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-13), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16080 Filed 7-26-18; 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: EC18-111-000.

    Applicants: Grand River Wind LLC, Trishe Wind Ohio, LLC.

    Description: Amendment to June 25, 2018 Application for Approval Pursuant under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Grand River Wind LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180718-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/25/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1218-005.

    Applicants: Solar Star California XIII, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Solar Star California XIII MBR Tariff Change in Status to be effective 7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-38-003.

    Applicants: Kingbird Solar A, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Kingbird Solar A LLC Notice of Change in Category Status to be effective7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2036-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 5044; Queue No. AB1-013 to be effective 5/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/18/18.

    Accession Number: 20180718-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2037-000.

    Applicants: Boulder Solar Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Boulder Solar Shared Facilities Agreement No. 1 to be effective 7/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5028.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2038-000.

    Applicants: Cogentrix Virginia Financing Holding Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2039-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-07-19 PSCo-TSGT Non-Cnfmg LGIA-Rifle SS-0.0.0-Filing to be effective 7/19/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2040-000.

    Applicants: James River Genco, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5049.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2041-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-TSGT-JM Shafer-E&P-459-0.1.0-NOC to be effective7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    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 19, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16082 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2593-009; ER14-661-015; ER15-1475-010; ER15-54-009; ER15-55-009; ER16-38-004; ER16-39-004; ER15-1218-006; ER15-2224-004; ER16-1154-007.

    Applicants: Desert Stateline LLC, SG2 Imperial Valley LLC, North Star Solar, LLC, Lost Hills Solar, LLC, Blackwell Solar, LLC, Kingbird Solar A, LLC, Kingbird Solar B, LLC, Solar Star Colorado XIII, LLC, Solar Star Colorado III, LLC, Parrey, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material of Change in Status of Desert Stateline LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-39-003.

    Applicants: Kingbird Solar B, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Kingbird Solar B LLC MBR Tariff Change in Status to be effective 7/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-351-005; ER17-354-005; ER17-2162-004; ER17-2163-004.

    Applicants: American Falls Solar, LLC, American Falls Solar II, LLC, SunE Beacon Site 2 LLC, SunE Beacon Site 5 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of American Falls Solar, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1669-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2018-07-20_SA 3115 LCM-ELL Substitute Original GIA (C042) to be effective 6/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5042.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1955-001.

    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended SCMCN DX Formula Rate to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/19/18.

    Accession Number: 20180719-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1959-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2018-07-20 SA 2677 GRE-NSP Substitute 3rd Rev GIA (J278) to be effective 6/21/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2042-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits 4 ECSAs, Service Agreement Nos. 4934, 4935, 4936, and 4937 to be effective 9/20/2018.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-47-000.

    Applicants: Transource West Virginia, LLC.

    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act for Authorization to Issue Securities of Transource West Virginia, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/20/18.

    Accession Number: 20180720-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, 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 20, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16085 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9981-30-OA] Request for Nominations of Experts for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations for scientific experts to form a CASAC ad hoc panel to provide advice through the chartered CASAC on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted by (August 17, 2018) per instructions below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-2050 or via email at [email protected] General information concerning the CASAC can be found on the following website: http://www.epa.gov/casac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee. The CASAC provides advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC shall also: Advise the EPA Administrator of areas in which additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing, new, or revised NAAQS; describe the research efforts necessary to provide the required information; advise the EPA Administrator on the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations of natural as well as anthropogenic activity; and advise the EPA Administrator of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of such NAAQS.

    As amended, 5 U.S.C., App. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, as appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including ozone. With the publication of the National Ambient Standards for Ozone (80 FR 65292) on October 26, 2015, the Agency completed its most recent review of the Ozone NAAQS. The CASAC's Ozone Review Panel for that review cycle was formed in January 2009 and completed its work in July 2014.

    This Federal Register notice solicitation is seeking nominations for subject matter experts to serve on the CASAC Ozone Review Panel for the next review of the Ozone NAAQS that begins in fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Panel will be charged with reviewing the science and policy assessments, and related documents, that form the basis for the EPA's review of the Ozone NAAQS, and will provide advice through the Chartered CASAC.

    The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As a Federal Advisory Committee, the CASAC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. The CASAC and the CASAC Ozone Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

    Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists with demonstrated expertise and research in the field of air pollution related to ozone. Experts are sought in: Air quality, atmospheric science and chemistry, causal inference, dosimetry, toxicology, controlled clinical exposure, epidemiology, biostatistics, human exposure modeling, risk assessment/modeling, uncertainty analysis, ecology and effects on welfare and the environment, and environmental economics.

    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas of expertise described above. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) using the online nomination form under “Public Input on Membership” on the CASAC web page at http://www.epa.gov/casac. To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested below. EPA values and welcomes diversity. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of sex, race, disability or ethnicity. Nominations should be submitted by (August 17, 2018).

    The following information should be provided on the nomination form: Contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public comment process described below, or who are unable to submit nominations through the CASAC website, should contact the DFO, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations and will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of Candidates on the CASAC website at http://www.epa.gov/casac. Public comments on each List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days from the date the list is posted. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

    For the EPA SAB Staff Office, a balanced review panel includes candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of experience to adequately address the charge. In forming this expert panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office. Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as a whole, diversity of expertise and viewpoints.

    The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial conflicts of interest will include a review of the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which includes membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following URL address https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/Form3110-48exp2018/$File/EPA3110-48exp2018.pdf.

    The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects subcommittees and review panels is described in the following document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is posted on the SAB website at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebFiles/OverviewPanelForm/$File/ec02010.pdf.

    Dated: July 19, 2018. Khanna Johnston, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16116 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0327; FRL—9981-22-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (EPA ICR No. 1051.14, OMB Control No. 2060-0025), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through August 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0327, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method); or by email to: [email protected]; or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), as well as the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 60, subpart F. This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Portland cement plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart F).

    Estimated number of respondents: 95 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 14,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,290,000 (per year), which includes $767,000 in annualized capital startup and/or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is a small adjustment decrease in the respondent labor hours and the total capital and O&M costs from the most-recently approved ICR due to a decrease in the number of respondents. Consistent with past ICRs, this ICR uses the most recent data from EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to estimate the respondent universe, which shows a decrease of 1 respondent as compared to the previous ICR.

    Courtney Kerwin, Director, Regulatory Support Division.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16070 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9040-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 07/16/2018 Through 07/20/2018 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20180165, Draft, USFS, CA, Williamson Rock and Pacific Crest Trail, Comment Period Ends: 09/14/2018, Contact: Chinling Chen 626-574-5255 EIS No. 20180166, Final Supplement, FHWA, AK, Juneau Access Improvements Project, Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FTA has issued a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not apply to this action. Contact: Tim Haugh 907-586-7418 EIS No. 20180167, Draft, NMFS, DC, Draft Amendment 11 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/01/2018, Contact: Guy DuBeck 301-427-8503 EIS No. 20180168, Draft, USACE, AL, Mobile Harbor, Mobile, Alabama Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report with Supplemental, Comment Period Ends: 09/10/2018, Contact: Jennifer L. Jacobson 251-690-2724 EIS No. 20180169, Final, BLM, NV, Gold Rock Mine Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2018, Contact: Maria Ryan 775-289-1888 Dated: July 24, 2018. Kelly Knight, Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16094 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9980-97-OEI] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Environmental Information (OEI), Office of Enterprise Information Programs (OEIP), eDiscovery Division, is giving notice that it proposes to establish a new system of records pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The new system of records will contain information collected using the Agency's suite of tools that search and preserve electronically stored information (ESI) in support of eDiscovery requests, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or other formal information requests. Exemptions for this system of records will be included in the Agency's update of its Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

    DATES:

    Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must do so by. If no comments are received, the systems of records notice will become effective by August 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2012-0882, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian K. Thompson, Acting Director, eDiscovery Division, Office of Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; email, [email protected]; telephone number, 202-564-4256.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to establish a Privacy Act system of records for information collected using its eDiscovery (electronic discovery) Enterprise Tool Suite. Depending on the specific need, the Agency will use a combination of several electronic tools that together assist with the preservation, search, processing, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). The tool suite will be used to preserve, search, collect, sort and review ESI including email messages, word processing documents, media files, spreadsheets, presentations, scanned documents and data sets in support of legal discovery. The Agency will also use these tools to search for ESI that is responsive to requests for information submitted under FOIA or other formal information requests.

    To minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored in the system, strict access controls have been imposed. Access to the tool suite containing records is restricted to a limited number of authorized users with the appropriate security clearances and password permissions. Access to the system is further limited by user type. System administrators have full access to the tool suite, including the ability to perform administrative functions. Other users are provided a level of access to the tool suite that is commensurate with their role in the system, allowing them to perform the functions for which they are authorized. Authorized users include federal and contract staff located throughout the country. The system is maintained in secure areas and buildings with physical access controls. The eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite is maintained by the Office of Environmental Information and is stored on servers located in Washington, DC, and Durham, NC. Data retrieved are stored on servers and work stations throughout the country. The information contained in the system can be wide-ranging and potentially include emails, documents and other sources of ESI collected from custodians and may contain personally identifiable information. The information in the system will also contain the names and EPA email addresses of EPA employees, contractors, and grantees who have been identified as potential information custodians. Privacy information may be included in the ESI collected and maintained in the system. Individuals for whom records are maintained in the system include, but are not limited to, those individuals who have been identified as potential information custodians in a litigation, investigation, FOIA matter or other formal information request and those individuals whose information may appear in such records. The system will aid in protecting the privacy of individuals from unwarranted disclosure by allowing authorized users of the tool suite to identify files that contain privacy information to be protected from disclosure. EPA will safeguard individuals' privacy in a manner consistent with the Privacy Act, E-Government Act, OMB directives and other federal requirements concerning privacy. Accordingly, the privacy of individuals should not be affected.

    SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER

    eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite, EPA-63.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, eDiscovery Division, Office of Enterprise Information Programs, Office of Environmental Information, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Records are also maintained in Research Triangle Park, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27709.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Greg Duke, eDiscovery Division, Office of Enterprise Information Programs, Office of Environmental Information, MC 3PM50, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    40 U.S.C. 11315 and 44 U.S.C. 3506.

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    To support the document identification and collection processes for eDiscovery, Freedom of Information Act requests and other formal information requests.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Categories of individuals covered by this system include: (1) All persons subject to a litigation hold due to a “reasonable anticipation of litigation” as determined by EPA; (2) all persons deemed a participant of past or present litigation, investigation or arbitration where EPA is involved, including civil and criminal enforcement cases and defensive litigation; and (3) individuals impacted by Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, litigation or other cases in EPA.

    A wide variety of individuals are covered by the system, including individuals who correspond with EPA; provide information to EPA that is subject to discovery, a FOIA request or other formal information request; or are the subject of litigation with EPA; individuals who file complaints or petitions with EPA; and individuals involved in matters with EPA as either plaintiffs or defendants in both civil and criminal matters.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    • eDiscovery Litigation Hold Files. The litigation hold files contain the names and email addresses of EPA employees and EPA contractors, interns, or grantees who have been provided EPA email addresses and who have been identified as custodians of information that needs to be preserved in the anticipation of litigation. The records in the system will include these individuals' names and EPA email addresses which are entered into the system by designated EPA employees responsible for the administration of litigation holds. Information in the system includes litigation hold notices and answers to certification questions. Reports may be generated from the system that identify whether an individual is designated as a custodian of hold-responsive information, as well as reports containing the information received from individuals in response to questions asked through the litigation hold system.

    • eDiscovery Case Tracking Files. The case tracking files contain information about the cases created in response to a litigation, investigation, FOIA matter or other formal information request. Case tracking files may contain the names, phone numbers, organizations, and email addresses of EPA employees and EPA contractors, interns, or grantees who have been identified as custodians in a case or as points of contact for managing the case. Information in the case tracking files may include the location of the information to be searched, search terms and case notes entered into the system by designated EPA employees or contractors responsible for operating EPA's eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite.

    • eDiscovery Collection Files. The collection files contain information potentially responsive to a litigation, investigation, FOIA matter or other formal information request. The Tool Suite may capture many types of personally identifiable information depending on where that information is stored, including an individual's name; work address and telephone number; home address and telephone number; email addresses; vehicle information; names of individuals associated with a FOIA request or litigation hold; or other related information. The collection files contain all data collected by the tools using the search criteria and may contain, but not be limited to, correspondence (e.g., case coordination reports; memoranda and other records of communication, including electronic communication over email systems or instant messaging among other EPA employees and/or personnel of other federal agencies and outside parties and attachments to those messages or communications); local/shared drive data; information collected or compiled from EPA database systems; spreadsheets of data collections often including personally identifiable information or law enforcement data used to track the process of investigations or focus investigative priorities; records relating to litigation by or against the United States government; records relating to requests for EPA records other than requests under the FOIA and the Privacy Act of 1974; legal documents including complaints, summaries, affidavits, litigation reports, motions, subpoenas and any other court filing or administrative filing, or other related litigation documents; documentary evidence; supporting documents related to the legal and programmatic issues of a case; transcripts of interviews; regulatory history (i.e., permits and reports generated as a result of normal program activity); administrative record material and comments on administrative records; technical support (reports generated to test search criteria); investigative notes; reports requesting permission and use; transcripts of tapes; records checks (personal history, police information, fingerprint cards, photographs); property reports; property obtained and retained by an examiner including documents, personal property and documentary or other evidence; employment records and information related to employment matters; claims and records regarding discrimination, including employment and sex discrimination; personnel matters; contracts and information relating to contracts; manifests and other related investigative information.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    EPA employees; employees of federal contractors; employees of other federal agencies and of state, local, tribal and foreign agencies; witnesses; informants; public source materials; and other persons who may have information relevant to the search criteria.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    EPA's General Routine Uses A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, and L apply to this system. Please refer to https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/01/14/E8-445/amendment-to-general-routine-uses for a full explanation of these routine uses (73 FR 2245).

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    Records in the system are stored in database applications running on computer servers.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Litigation hold and case tracking files are assigned a case file control number or case name. Information collected from individuals pertaining to particular cases may be retrieved by names of individuals, email addresses, and other unique identifiers.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    Records stored in the system are subject to records schedule 1012 and 0089.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected computer system. Role-based access controls limit a user's access to the information in the system. Users are provided access to information in the system based on their need to know. Individuals working on a particular matter will be given access to the information related to that matter. The eDiscovery Enterprise Tool Suite is a password protected system requiring all users log in to access the information in the system. The system times out after a period of latency ensuring a user re-authenticates their session with a username and password. The system also maintains a user log that identifies and records persons who access and use the system. Users of EPA systems are required to complete security and privacy training on an annual basis to ensure continued access to the system. All records are maintained in secure areas and buildings with physical access controls.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Request for access must be made in accordance with the procedures described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16. Requesters will be required to provide adequate identification, such as a driver's license, employee identification card or other identifying document. Additional identification procedures may be required in some instances.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be changed and the corrective action sought. Complete EPA Privacy Act procedures are described in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    Any individual who wants to know whether this system of records contains a record about him or her should make a written request to the Agency Privacy Officer, MC 2831T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    For those records within the system collected and maintained pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and/or for the purpose of civil discovery, action or proceeding, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5) will apply, stating that “nothing in this [Act] shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.” In addition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), this system is exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in that subsection: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H) and (f)(2) through (5). Finally, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), when records are contained in this system related to a criminal enforcement proceeding, this system is exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in that subsection: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f)(2) through (f)(5) and (g).

    HISTORY:

    None.

    Dated: May 30, 2018. Steven Fine, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16117 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CG Docket No. 03-123; DA 18-733] Notice of Certification of State Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Programs AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC or Commission) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) hereby grants renewals of certifications to the state and U.S. territory TRS programs listed below.

    DATES:

    These certifications, conditioned on a demonstration of ongoing compliance with the Commission's rules governing TRS, shall remain in effect for a five (5) year period, beginning July 26, 2018, and ending July 25, 2023, pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606(c). Beginning one year prior to the expiration of these certifications, July 25, 2022, each state or U.S. territory may apply for renewal of its TRS program certification by filing documentation in accordance with the Commission's rules, pursuant to 47 CFR 64.606(a).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dana Wilson, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at: (202) 418-2247; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of this document and copies of the filed applications are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portal II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Applications also may be found by searching on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 03-123 into the Proceeding block). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rights-office-headlines.

    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

    After reviewing each of the state and U.S. territory applications received, the Bureau has determined that:

    (1) The TRS programs of the listed states and U.S. territories meet or exceed all operational, technical, and functional minimum standards contained in § 64.604 of the Commission's rules;

    (2) The TRS programs of the listed states and U.S. territories make available adequate procedures and remedies for enforcing the requirements of their state and U.S. territory programs; and

    (3) The TRS programs of the listed states and U.S. territories in no way conflict with federal law.

    The Bureau also has determined that, where applicable, the intrastate funding mechanisms of the listed states and U.S. territories are labeled in a manner that promotes national understanding of TRS and does not offend the public, consistent with § 64.606(d) of the Commission's rules.

    STATES AND U.S. TERRITORIES APPROVED FOR CERTIFICATION File No: TRS-46-17 Alabama Public Service Commission State of Alabama File No: TRS-19-17 Regulatory Commission of Alaska State of Alaska File No: TRS-47-17 Arkansas Deaf and Hearing Impaired Telecommunications Service Corporation State of Arkansas File No: TRS-02-17 Arizona Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing State of Arizona File No: TRS-32-17 California Public Utilities Commission State of California File No: TRS-23-17 Colorado Public Utilities Commission State of Colorado File No: TRS-48-17 Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority State of Connecticut File No: TRS-35-17 Delaware Public Service Commission State of Delaware File No: TRS-49-17 Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia District of Columbia File No: TRS-50-17 Florida Public Service Commission State of Florida File No: TRS-51-17 Georgia Public Service Commission State of Georgia File No: TRS-22-17 Hawaii Public Utilities Commission State of Hawaii File No: TRS-43-17 Idaho Public Service Commission State of Idaho File No: TRS-10-17 Illinois Commerce Commission State of Illinois File No: TRS-08-17 Indiana Telephone Relay Access Corporation State of Indiana File No: TRS-03-17 Iowa Utilities Board State of Iowa File No: TRS-07-17 Kansas Dual Party Relay Services State of Kansas File No: TRS-52-17 Kentucky Public Service Commission Commonwealth of Kentucky File No: TRS-13-17 Louisiana Relay Administration Board State of Louisiana File No: TRS-53-17 Maine Telecommunications Relay Service Advisory Council State of Maine File No: TRS-33-17 Maryland Department of Information Technology Telecommunications Access of Maryland State of Maryland File No: TRS-34-17 Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable Commonwealth of Massachusetts File No: TRS-54-17 Michigan Public Service Commission State of Michigan File No: TRS-39-17 Minnesota Department of Commerce—Telecommunications Access Minnesota State of Minnesota File No: TRS-55-17 Mississippi Public Service Commission State of Mississippi File No: TRS-15-17 Missouri Public Service Commission State of Missouri File No: TRS-56-17 Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services State of Montana File No: TRS-40-17 Nebraska Public Service Commission State of Nebraska File No: TRS-25-17 Nevada Department of Health and Human Services Aging and Disability Services State of Nevada File No: TRS-42-17 New Hampshire Public Service Commission State of New Hampshire File No: TRS-45-17 New Jersey Board of Public Utilities State of New Jersey File No: TRS-14-17 New Mexico Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing State of New Mexico File No: TRS-16-17 New York State Department of Public Service State of New York File No: TRS-30-17 North Carolina Utilities Commission State of North Carolina File No: TRS-12-17 North Dakota Public Service Commission State of North Dakota File No: TRS-37-17 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio State of Ohio File No: TRS-57-17 Oklahoma Telephone Association State of Oklahoma File No: TRS-36-17 Oregon Public Utility Commission State of Oregon File No: TRS-58-17 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania File No: TRS-28-17 Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico File No: TRS-59-17 Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission State of Rhode Island File No: TRS-62-17 Micronesian Telephone Corporation d/b/a Pacific Telecom, Inc. Saipan File No: TRS-11-17 South Carolina Public Service Commission State of South Carolina File No: TRS-60-17 Public Service Commission of South Dakota State of South Dakota File No: TRS-20-17 Tennessee Public Utility Commission State of Tennessee File No: TRS-17-17 Public Utility Commission of Texas State of Texas File No: TRS-61-17 Virgin Islands Public Service Commission U.S. Virgin Islands File No: TRS-09-17 Utah Public Service Commission State of Utah File No: TRS-44-17 Vermont Department of Public Service State of Vermont File No: TRS-04-17 Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commonwealth of Virginia File No: TRS-27-17 Washington Department of Social and Health Services Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing State of Washington File No: TRS-06-17 Public Service Commission of West Virginia State of West Virginia File No: TRS-01-17 Wisconsin Department of Administration Wisconsin Telecommunications Relay Systems State of Wisconsin File No: TRS-18-17 Wyoming Department of Workforce Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation State of Wyoming Federal Communications Commission. Eliot Greenwald, Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16041 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 13, 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 State Bancorp, Inc., Caruthersville, Missouri; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Mississippi County Savings and Loan Association, Charleston, Missouri, and thereby engage in operating a savings association pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 24, 2018. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16062 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Requests for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted—June 1, 2018 Thru June 30, 2018 06/01/2018 20181214 G American Industrial Partners Capital Fund V, L.P.; Gene K. Ponder and Patsy K. Ponder; American Industrial Partners Capital Fund V, L.P. 20181277 G Mr. Len Blavatnik; Opendoor Labs Inc.; Mr. Len Blavatnik. 20181284 G Permira VI L.P. 1; WeddingWire, Inc.; Permira VI L.P. 1. 06/04/2018 20181236 G JLL Partners Fund VII, L.P.; Integer Holdings Corporation; JLL Partners Fund VII, L.P. 20181237 G Water Street Healthcare Partners III, L.P.; Integer Holdings Corporation; Water Street Healthcare Partners III, L.P. 20181305 G Carl C. Icahn; AmTrust Financial Services, Inc.; Carl C. Icahn. 20181307 G DIF Infrastructure V Cooperatief U.A.; Syncora Holdings Ltd.; DIF Infrastructure V Cooperatief U.A. 20181325 G Monomoy Capital Partners III, L.P.; EMC Topco, Inc.; Monomoy Capital Partners III, L.P. 20181326 G OCP Trust; New Mountain Partners IV Cayman (AIV-A), L.P.; OCP Trust. 20181330 G AOT Building Products LP; Versatex Holdings, LLC; AOT Building Products LP. 20181331 G TPG Growth IV, L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P.; TPG Growth IV, L.P. 20181333 G Qingdao Haier Co., Ltd.; Haier Group Corporation; Qingdao Haier Co., Ltd. 20181338 G BCP Energy Services Fund-A, LP; BCP Energy Services Fund, LP; BCP Energy Services Fund-A, LP. 20181339 G ICG Europe Fund VII SCSp; MV Holding GmbH; ICG Europe Fund VII SCSp. 20181340 G Charlesbank Equity Fund IX, Limited; Rockport Blocker, LLC; Charlesbank Equity Fund IX, Limited. 20181341 G The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; Vail Holdco Corp.; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 20181342 G VWR Partners, L.P.; Vail Holdco Corp.; VWR Partners, L.P. 20181343 G Wafra Cornerstone Partners L.P.; The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC; Wafra Cornerstone Partners L.P. 20181345 G Aretex Capital Partners Fund, LP; Gabriel Hammond; Aretex Capital Partners Fund, LP. 20181357 G Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P.; Aurora Resurgence Fund II L.P.; Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P. 06/05/2018 20180022 G Northrop Grumman Corporation; Orbital ATK, Inc.; Northrop Grumman Corporation. 20181261 G Vivus, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Vivus, Inc. 20181344 G ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Enbridge, Inc.; ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20181365 G Keyera Corp.; Texon Holding II L.P.; Keyera Corp. 06/06/2018 20181275 G Johnson & Johnson; HC2 Holdings, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson. 20181354 G The Cranemere Group Limited; TPG Growth II DE AIV II, L.P.; The Cranemere Group Limited. 20181355 G HCA Healthcare, Inc.; North Cypress Medical Center Operation Company, LTD; HCA Healthcare, Inc. 20181359 G Arkoma Drilling, L.P.; Comstock Resources, Inc.; Arkoma Drilling, L.P. 20181360 G Williston Drilling, L.P.; Comstock Resources, Inc.; Williston Drilling, L.P. 20181366 G DC Capital Partners Fund II, L.P.; Thomas J. Campbell; DC Capital Partners Fund II, L.P. 20181367 G Berwind Holding Corp.; Bertram Growth Capital II, L.P.; Berwind Holding Corp. 20181369 G Thomas J. Campbell; DC Capital Partners Fund II, L.P.; Thomas J. Campbell. 20181371 G Adobe Systems Incorporated; Permira V L.P. 2; Adobe Systems Incorporated. 06/07/2018 20181332 G Continental AG; OSRAM Licht AG; Continental AG. 06/08/2018 20181308 G Bank of Montreal; KGS Holdings, L.P.; Bank of Montreal. 20181328 G R2G Foundation; First Quality Nonwovens, Inc.; R2G Foundation. 20181346 G The Middleby Corporation; United Technologies Corporation; The Middleby Corporation. 20181352 G Colliers International Group Inc.; Harrison Street Real Estate Capital LLC; Colliers International Group Inc. 20181373 G Conifex Timber Inc.; BW SLC AIV III L.P.; Conifex Timber Inc. 20181376 G Steel Dynamics, Inc.; Rio Purus Participacoes S/A; Steel Dynamics, Inc. 20181380 G David A. Tepper; Carolina PSLFC, LLC; David A. Tepper. 20181401 G EQT Mid Market US Limited Partnership; Arlington Capital Partners II, L.P.; EQT Mid Market US Limited Partnership. 20181403 G Anthem, Inc.; Aspire Health, Inc.; Anthem, Inc. 06/12/2018 20181351 G PS Holdings Independent Trust; Lowe's Companies, Inc.; PS Holdings Independent Trust. 20181400 G American Family Insurance Mutual Holding Company; Main Street America Group Mutual Holdings, Inc.; American Family Insurance Mutual Holding Company. 20181402 G Elon Musk; Tesla, Inc.; Elon Musk. 20181410 G Cornell Capital Partners III LP; AMCP AIV, L.P.; Cornell Capital Partners III LP. 20181415 G The Kroger Co.; Relish Labs LLC; The Kroger Co. 06/15/2018 20181348 G TransUnion; iovation, Inc.; TransUnion. 06/19/2018 20181246 G HS Spinco, Inc.; Direct Vet Marketing, Inc.; HS Spinco, Inc. 20181316 G Carl C. Icahn; Dell Technologies Inc.; Carl C. Icahn. 20181317 G Carl C. Icahn; Dell Technologies Inc.; Carl C. Icahn. 20181319 G The CVRF Trust; Dell Technologies Inc.; The CVRF Trust. 20181323 G Carl C. Icahn; Energen Corporation; Carl C. Icahn. 20181392 G Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P.; Palermo TT Holdings, Inc.; Bain Capital Fund XII, L.P. 20181404 G EQT Corporation; Rice Midstream Partners LP; EQT Corporation. 20181409 G GC EOS InvestCo, LLC; Letterone Investment Holdings S.A.; GC EOS InvestCo, LLC. 20181416 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Integral Ad Science, Inc.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20181420 G Windjammer Senior Equity Fund IV, L.P.; EXT Acquisitions, Inc.; Windjammer Senior Equity Fund IV, L.P. 20181424 G The Resolute Fund IV, L.P.; GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc.; The Resolute Fund IV, L.P. 20181425 G ABRY Senior Equity V, L.P.; SV Holdco, LLC; ABRY Senior Equity V, L.P. 20181427 G Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P.; Michael A. DiMayo; Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P. 20181428 G Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P.; Kevin E. Myers; Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P. 20181429 G Grammer AG; Industrial Opportunity Partners, L.P.; Grammer AG. 20181432 G Superior Plus Corp.; NGL Energy Partners LP; Superior Plus Corp. 20181437 G Mrs. Wu Bifeng; Industrial Opportunity Partners, L.P.; Mrs. Wu Bifeng. 20181438 G Polaris Industries Inc.; Boat Holdings, LLC; Polaris Industries Inc. 20181439 G Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA; Humacyte, Inc.; Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA. 20181444 G Wynnchurch Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Sequel Industrial Products Holdings, LLC; Wynnchurch Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20181447 G Partners Group Access 967 L.P.; AI Global Investments & Cy S.C.A.; Partners Group Access 967 L.P. 06/20/2018 20181378 G Grand Canyon University Foundation; Grand Canyon Education, Inc.; Grand Canyon University Foundation. 20181398 G Axium Infrastructure NA IV L.P.; EIF United States Power Fund IV, L.P.; Axium Infrastructure NA IV L.P. 20181423 G Spirit RR Holdings, Inc.; Reorg Research, Inc.; Spirit RR Holdings, Inc. 20181434 G WellCare Health Plans, Inc.; Dr. David Cotton and Shery Cotton; WellCare Health Plans, Inc. 20181436 G Mrs. Wu Bifeng; Grammer AG; Mrs. Wu Bifeng. 06/21/2018 20181334 G BBA Aviation plc; Downstream Aviation, LP; BBA Aviation plc. 20181408 G Thoma Bravo Fund XII, L.P.; LogRhythm, Inc.; Thoma Bravo Fund XII, L.P. 06/22/2018 20181364 G Eurazeo S.E.; Polycarbon Industries, Inc.; Eurazeo S.E. 20181450 G KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P.; Boxer Parent Company Inc.; KKR Americas Fund XII, L.P. 20181454 G Spectrum Equity VII, L.P.; Lucid Software Inc.; Spectrum Equity VII, L.P. 20181458 G Capgemini SE; Leidos Holdings, Inc.; Capgemini SE. 20181460 G Arlington Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Julian A. Guerra; Arlington Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20181461 G Hexagon AB; Robert D. Hambrick; Hexagon AB. 20181462 G Oak Hill Capital Partners IV (Onshore), L.P.; VetCor Investment Holdings, L.P.; Oak Hill Capital Partners IV (Onshore), L.P. 20181463 G H.I.G. Capital Partners V, L.P.; Galaxy Invest Inc.; H.I.G. Capital Partners V, L.P. 20181472 G KSLB Group Holdings, LLC; Tyson Family 2009 Trust; KSLB Group Holdings, LLC. 20181474 G Qurate Retail, Inc.; Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation; Qurate Retail, Inc. 20181475 G Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P.; Riverside Capital Appreciation Fund V, L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P. 20181484 G RYPS, LLC; Conserve School Trust; RYPS, LLC. 20181486 G Seidler Equity Partners VI, L.P.; Newell Brands Inc.; Seidler Equity Partners VI, L.P. 20181488 G Primavera Capital Partners III L.P.; Zoox, Inc.; Primavera Capital Partners III L.P. 20181493 G OCP Trust; Water Street Healthcare Partners III, L.P.; OCP Trust. 20181494 G Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P.; Wells Fargo & Company; Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P. 20181497 G Aurora Equity Partners V L.P.; Arsenal Capital Partners QP II LP; Aurora Equity Partners V L.P. 06/26/2018 20181449 G Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.; TheDebtCenter, LLC; Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 20181483 G Osprey Energy Acquisition Corp.; Royal Resources L.P.; Osprey Energy Acquisition Corp. 20181492 G Titan DI Holdings, Inc.; Drilling Info Holdings, Inc.; Titan DI Holdings, Inc. 20181502 G CenterPoint Energy, Inc.; Vectren Corporation; CenterPoint Energy, Inc. 06/27/2018 20181473 G GCI Liberty, Inc.; LendingTree, Inc.; GCI Liberty, Inc. 06/28/2018 20181452 G Elliott Associates, L.P.; Sempra Energy; Elliott Associates, L.P. 20181453 G Elliott International Limited; Sempra Energy; Elliott International Limited. 20181455 G JSW Energy Interests LP; Sempra Energy; JSW Energy Interests LP. 06/29/2018 20181211 G American Well Corporation; Avizia, Inc.; American Well Corporation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16025 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (BSC, NCIPC).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 14, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., EDT (CLOSED).

    ADDRESSES:

    Teleconference.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn H. Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H., Deputy Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-1430, Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Purpose: The Board of Scientific Counselors makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; and reviews progress toward injury prevention goals and provides evidence in injury prevention-related research and programs. The Board also provides advice on the appropriate balance of intramural and extramural research, the structure, progress and performance of intramural programs. The Board is designed to provide guidance on extramural scientific program matters, including the: (1) Review of extramural research concepts for funding opportunity announcements; (2) conduct of Secondary Peer Review of extramural research grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts applications received in response to the funding opportunity announcements as it relates to the Center's programmatic balance and mission; (3) submission of secondary review recommendations to the Center Director of applications to be considered for funding support; (4) review of research portfolios, and (5) review of program proposals.

    Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on Secondary Peer Review of extramural research grant and cooperative agreement applications received in response to one (1) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO): RFA-CE-18-006, Research Grants for Primary or Secondary Prevention of Opioid Overdose (RO1). Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dia Taylor, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16101 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The CDC, National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, announces the following meeting of the ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting. This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240 people. We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at hhtp://www.cms.gov/live/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 11, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT and September 12, 2018, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Traci Ramirez, Program Specialist, CDC, 3311 Toledo Rd., Hyattsville, MD 20782 telephone (301) 458-4454; email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a public forum for the presentation of proposed modifications to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification and ICD-10 Procedure Coding System.

    Matters To Be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on ICD-10-PCS Topics:

    Intraoperative Fluorescence Vascular Angiography for Lymphatic Mapping in Cervical and Uterine Cancers Insertion of Intramedullary Nail Limb Lengthening System Cell Suspension Autografting—REPEAT Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator System Administration of erdafitinib Administration of esketamine hydrochloride nasal spray, for intranasal use Administration of ERLEADATM (apalutamide), for oral use Addenda and Key Updates ICD-10-CM Topics Deep Vein Thrombosis Dravet Syndrome Latent Tuberculosis Infection Pressure ulcer of mucosal membrane by site ICD-10-CM Addendum

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Security Considerations: Due to increased security requirements, CMS has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees.

    Attendees will need to present valid government-issued picture identification, and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.

    Attendees who wish to attend the September 11-12, 2018, ICD-10-CM C&M meeting must submit their name and organization by September 3, 2018, for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by the guards to admit visitors to the meeting.

    Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish attend.

    Please register to attend the meeting on-line at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/events/.

    Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510) or [email protected] for questions about the registration process.

    Note:

    CMS and NCHS no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS websites prior to the meeting at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/03_meetings.asp#TopOfPage and https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm_maintenance.htm.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dia Taylor, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16102 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-18-0556] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on May 10, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project

    Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB No. 0920-0556, expires 7/31/2018)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Section 2(a) of Public Law 102-493 (known as the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (FCSRCA), 42 U.S.C. 263a-1(a)) requires that each assisted reproductive technology (ART) program shall annually report to the Secretary through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (1) Pregnancy success rates achieved by such ART program, and (2) the identity of each embryo laboratory used by such ART program and whether the laboratory is certified or has applied for such certification under the Act. The required information is currently reported by ART programs to CDC as specified in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Program Reporting System (OMB No. 0920-0556, exp. 7/31/2018). CDC seeks to extend OMB approval for a period of three years. The revised total burden estimate is lower than under the previous approval, due to removal of the burden associated with a one-time system upgrade that was completed under the prior approval. However, some of this burden reduction will be offset by an increase in the number of ART clinics and cycles reported, due to an increase in the utilization of ART in the United States.

    The currently approved program reporting system, also known as the National ART Surveillance System (NASS), includes information about all ART cycles initiated by any of the ART programs in the United States. An ART cycle is considered to begin when a woman begins taking ovarian stimulatory drugs or starts ovarian monitoring with the intent of having embryos transferred; for each cycle, CDC collects information about the pregnancy outcome, as well as a number of data items deemed by experts in the field to be important to explain variability in success rates across ART programs and individuals.

    Each ART program reports its annual ART cycle data to CDC in mid-December. The annual data reporting consists of information about all ART cycles that were initiated in the previous calendar year. For example, the December 2017 reports described ART cycles that were initiated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Data elements and definitions currently in use reflect CDC's prior consultations with representatives of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association (a national, nonprofit consumer organization), as well as a variety of individuals with expertise and interest in this field.

    The estimated number of respondents (ART programs or clinics) is 464, based on the number of clinics that provided information in 2015; the estimated average number of responses (ART cycles) per respondent is 350. Additionally, approximately 5-10% of responding clinics will be randomly selected each year to participate in data validation and quality control activities; an estimated 35 clinics will be selected to report validation data on 70 cycles each on average. Finally, respondents may provide feedback to CDC about the usability and utility of the reporting system. The option to participate in the feedback survey is presented to respondents when they complete their required data submission. Participation in the feedback survey is voluntary and is not required by the FCSRCA. CDC estimates that 75% of ART programs will participate in the feedback survey.

    The collection of ART cycle information allows CDC to publish an annual report to Congress as specified by the FCSRCA and to provide information needed by consumers. OMB approval is requested for three years. The estimated annualized Burden Hours are 114,631 which is a decrease of 1,794 from the current OMB-approved collection. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • ART Clinics NASS 464 350 42/60 Data Validation 35 70 23/60 Feedback Survey 348 1 2/60
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16091 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-18-0222] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Collaborating Center for Questionnaire Design and Evaluation Research (CCQDER), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 1, 2018 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.

    CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:

    (a) 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;

    (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and

    (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Provide written comments within 30 days of notice publication.

    Proposed Project Collaborating Center for Questionnaire Design and Evaluation Research (CCQDER) (OMB Control Number 0920-0222, Expiration 07/31/2018)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Background and Brief Description

    Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall undertake and support (by grant or contract) research, demonstrations, and evaluations respecting new or improved methods for obtaining current data to support statistical and epidemiological activities for the purpose of improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of health services in the United States.

    The Collaborating Center for Questionnaire Design and Evaluation Research (CCQDER) is the focal point within NCHS for questionnaire and survey development, pre-testing, and evaluation activities for CDC surveys (such as the NCHS National Health Interview Survey, OMB No. 0920-0214) and other federally sponsored surveys. NCHS is requesting 3 years of OMB Clearance for this generic submission.

    The CCQDER and other NCHS programs conduct cognitive interviews, focus groups, in-depth or ethnographic interviews, usability tests, field tests/pilot interviews, and experimental research in laboratory and field settings, both for applied questionnaire development and evaluation as well as more basic research on measurement errors and survey response.

    Various techniques to evaluate interviewer administered, self-administered, telephone, Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI), Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (ACASI), and web-based questionnaires are used.

    The most common questionnaire evaluation method is the cognitive interview. These evaluations are conducted by the CCQDER and contractors, as needed. The interview structure consists of respondents first answering a draft survey question and then providing textual information to reveal the processes involved in answering the test question. Specifically, cognitive interview respondents are asked to describe how and why they answered the question as they did. Through the interviewing process, various types of question-response problems that would not normally be identified in a traditional survey interview, such as interpretive errors and recall accuracy, are uncovered. By conducting a comparative analysis of cognitive interviews, it is also possible to determine whether particular interpretive patterns occur within particular sub-groups of the population. Interviews are generally conducted in small rounds totaling 40-100 interviews; ideally, the questionnaire is re-worked between rounds, and revisions are tested iteratively until interviews yield relatively few new insights..

    Cognitive interviewing is inexpensive and provides useful data on questionnaire performance while minimizing respondent burden. Cognitive interviewing offers a detailed depiction of meanings and processes used by respondents to answer questions—processes that ultimately produce the survey data. As such, the method offers an insight that can transform understanding of question validity and response error. Documented findings from these studies represent tangible evidence of how the question performs. Such documentation also serves CDC data users, allowing them to be critical users in their approach and application of the data.

    In addition to cognitive interviewing, a number of other qualitative and quantitative methods are used to investigate and research measurement error and the survey response process. These methods include conducting focus groups, usability tests, in-depth or ethnographic interviews, and the administration and analysis of questions in both representative and non-representative field tests. Focus groups are conducted by the CCQDER and contractors, as needed. They are group discussions whose primary purpose is to elicit the basic sociocultural understandings and terminology that form the basis of questionnaire design. Each group typically consists of one moderator and 4 to 10 participants, depending on the research question. In-depth or ethnographic interviews are one-on-one interviews designed to elicit the understandings or terminology that are necessary for question design, as well as to gather detailed information that can contribute to the analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data. Usability tests are typically one-on-one interviews that are used to determine how a given survey or information collection tool functions in the field, and how the mode and layout of the instrument itself may contribute to survey response error and the survey response process.

    In addition to these qualitative methods, NCHS also uses various tools to obtain quantitative data, which can be analyzed alone or analyzed alongside qualitative data to give a much fuller accounting of the survey response process. For instance, phone, internet, mail, and in-person follow-up interviews of previous NCHS survey respondents may be used to test the validity of survey questions and questionnaires and to obtain more detailed information that cannot be gathered on the original survey. Additionally, field or pilot tests may be conducted on both representative and non-representative samples, including those obtained from commercial survey and web panel vendors. Beyond looking at traditional measures of survey errors (such as item missing and non-response rates, and response latency), these pilot tests can be used to run experimental designs in order to capture how different questions function in a field setting.

    Similar methodology has been adopted by other federal agencies, as well as by academic and commercial survey organizations. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 7,783.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Individuals or households Eligibility Screening 4,000 1 5/60 Individuals or households Questionnaire Development Studies 7,300 1 55/60 Individuals or households Respondent Data Collection Sheet 7,300 1 5/60 Individuals or households Focus groups 100 1 90/60
    Jeffery M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16090 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Health Disparities Subcommittee (HDS) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Health Disparities Subcommittee (ACD, CDC-HDS). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the 50 audio phone lines. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by teleconference. Please dial (866) 918-8397 and enter code 9346283. There are 50 lines available. The public comment period is from 3:15 p.m.-3:20 p.m.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 9, 2018, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Teleconference phone (866) 918-8397 and enter code 9346283.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leandris Liburd, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.A., Designated Federal Officer, Health Disparities Subcommittee, Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, M/S K-77, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone (404) 498-6482, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The Subcommittee will provide counsel to the CDC Director through the ACD on strategic and other health disparities and health equity issues and provide guidance on opportunities for CDC.

    Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on new member orientation. This meeting will provide information to new members regarding their role & duties on this subcommittee. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dia Taylor, Acting Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16103 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-P-1283] Determination That Metaxalone Tablets, 640 Milligrams, Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that metaxalone tablets, 640 milligrams (mg), were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glen Cheng, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, Rm. 6217, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1494.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

    A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

    Metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, are the subject of NDA 22-503, held by Primus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and initially approved on June 1, 2015. Metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, are indicated as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions.

    In a letter dated September 30, 2015, the previous NDA holder CorePharma, LLC notified FDA that metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, were discontinued, and FDA moved the drug product to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

    Sovereign Pharmaceuticals, LLC submitted a citizen petition dated March 26, 2018 (Docket No. FDA-2018-P-1283), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to metaxalone tablets, 640 mg, may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16031 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0007] Generic Drug User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II), authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) to assess and collect fees for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), drug master files (DMFs), generic drug active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) facilities, finished dosage form (FDF) facilities, contract manufacturing organization (CMO) facilities, and generic drug applicant program user fees. In this document, FDA is announcing fiscal year (FY) 2019 rates for GDUFA II fees.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Hurley, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202J, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-4585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Sections 744A and 744B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-41 and 379j-42) establish fees associated with human generic drug products. Fees are assessed on: (1) Certain types of applications for human generic drug products; (2) certain facilities where APIs and FDFs are produced; (3) certain DMFs associated with human generic drug products; and (4) generic drug applicants who have approved ANDAs (the program fee) (see section 744B(a)(2)-(5) of the FD&C Act).

    GDUFA II stipulates that user fees should total $493,600,000 annually adjusted each year for inflation. For FY 2019, the generic drug fee rates are: ANDA ($178,799), DMF ($55,013), domestic API facility ($44,226), foreign API facility ($59,226), domestic FDF facility ($211,305), foreign FDF facility ($226,305), domestic CMO facility ($70,435), foreign CMO facility ($85,435), large size operation generic drug applicant program ($1,862,167), medium size operation generic drug applicant program ($744,867), and small business generic drug applicant program ($186,217). These fees are effective on October 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2019.

    II. Fee Revenue Amount for FY 2019

    The base revenue amount for FY 2019 is $493,600,000, as set in the statute (see section 744B(b)(1) of the FD&C Act). GDUFA II directs FDA to use the yearly revenue amount as a starting point to set the fee rates for each fee type. For more information about GDUFA II, please refer to the FDA website (https://www.fda.gov/gdufa). The ANDA, DMF, API facility, FDF facility, CMO facility, and generic drug applicant program fee (GDUFA program fee) calculations for FY 2019 are described in this document.

    GDUFA II specifies that the $493,600,000 is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2019 using two separate adjustments—one for personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs (see sections 744B(c)(1)(B) and (C) of the FD&C Act).

    The component of the inflation adjustment for PC&B costs shall be one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all PC&B paid per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first 3 of the 4 preceding fiscal years, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs of human generic drug activities for the first 3 of the preceding 4 fiscal years (see section 744B(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).

    Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and total FTE for the specified fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal year and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4 fiscal years preceding FY 2019. The 3-year average is 2.4152 percent.

    Table 1—FDA Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B) Each Year and Percent Change Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 3-Year average Total PC&B $2,232,304,000 $2,414,728,159 $2,581,551,000 Total FTE 15,484 16,381 17,022 PC&B per FTE $144,168 $147,408 $151,660 Percent Change from Previous Year 2.1136 2.2474 2.8845 2.4152

    The statute specifies that this 2.4152 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B expended for human generic drug activities for the first 3 of the preceding 4 fiscal years. Table 2 shows the amount of PC&B and the total amount obligated for human generic drug activities from FY 2015 through FY 2017.

    Table 2—PC&B as a Percent of Fee Revenues Spent on the Process of Human Generic Drug Applications Over the Last 3 Years Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 3-Year average PC&B $201,116,305 $242,963,571 $271,748,229 Non-PC&B $251,589,013 $250,987,599 $262,058,852 Total Costs $452,705,318 $493,951,170 $533,807,081 PC&B Percent 44.4254 49.1878 50.9076 48.1736 Non-PC&B Percent 55.5746 50.8122 49.0924 51.8264

    The payroll adjustment is 2.4152 percent multiplied by 48.1736 percent (or 1.1635 percent).

    The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-PC&B costs for FY 2019 is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items; annual index) for the first 3 of the preceding 4 years of available data multiplied by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B costs to total costs of human generic drug activities (see section 744B(c)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act). Table 3 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI. The data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found on its website at: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=dropmap&series_id=CUURA311SA0,CUUSA311SA0.

    Table 3—Annual and 3-Year Average Percent Change in CPI for Baltimore-Washington Area Year 2015 2016 2017 3-Year average Annual CPI 155.353 157.180 159.202 Annual Percent Change 0.3268 1.1760 1.2864 0.9297

    To calculate the inflation adjustment for non-pay costs, we multiply the 3-year average percent change in the CPI (0.9297 percent) by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B to total costs of human generic drug activities obligated. Because 48.1736 percent was obligated for PC&B as shown in table 2, 51.8264 percent is the portion of costs other than PC&B. The non-pay adjustment is 0.9297 percent times 51.8264 percent, or 0.4818 percent.

    To complete the inflation adjustment for FY 2019, we add the PC&B component (1.1635 percent) to the non-PC&B component (0.4818 percent) for a total inflation adjustment of 1.6453 percent (rounded), making 1.016453. We then multiply the base revenue amount for FY 2019 ($493,600,000) by 1.016453, yielding an inflation-adjusted amount of $501,721,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).

    III. ANDA Filing Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the FY 2019 ANDA filing fee is owed by each applicant that submits an ANDA on or after October 1, 2018. This fee is due on the submission date of the ANDA. Section 744B(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act specifies that the ANDA fee will make up 33 percent of the $501,721,000, which is $165,567,930.

    To calculate the ANDA fee, FDA estimated the number of full application equivalents (FAEs) that will be submitted in FY 2019. The submissions are broken down into three categories: New originals (submissions that have not been received by FDA previously); submissions that have been refused to receive (RTR) for reasons other than failure to pay fees; and applications that are resubmitted after having been RTR for reasons other than failure to pay fees. An ANDA counts as one FAE; however, 75 percent of the fee paid for an ANDA that has been RTR shall be refunded according to GDUFA II if (1) the ANDA is refused for a cause other than failure to pay fees, or (2) the ANDA has been withdrawn prior to receipt (section 744B(a)(2)(D)(i) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, an ANDA that is considered not to have been received by FDA due to reasons other than failure to pay fees or withdrawn prior to receipt counts as one-fourth of an FAE. After an ANDA has been RTR, the applicant has the option of resubmitting. For user fee purposes, these resubmissions are equivalent to new original submissions—ANDA resubmissions are charged the full amount for an application (one FAE).

    FDA utilized data from ANDAs submitted from October 1, 2013, to April 30, 2018, to estimate the number of new original ANDAs that will incur filing fees in FY 2019. For FY 2019, the Agency estimates that approximately 918 new original ANDAs will be submitted and incur filing fees. Not all of the new original ANDAs will be received by the Agency and some of those not received will be resubmitted in the same fiscal year. Therefore, the Agency expects that the FAE count for ANDAs will be 926 for FY 2019.

    The FY 2019 application fee is estimated by dividing the number of FAEs that will pay the fee in FY 2019 (926) into the fee revenue amount to be derived from ANDA application fees in FY 2019 ($165,567,930). The result, rounded to the nearest dollar, is a fee of $178,799 per ANDA.

    The statute provides that those ANDAs that include information about the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients other than by reference to a DMF will pay an additional fee that is based on the number of such active pharmaceutical ingredients and the number of facilities proposed to produce those ingredients (see section 744B(a)(3)(F) of the FD&C Act). FDA considers that this additional fee is unlikely to be assessed often; therefore, FDA has not included projections concerning the amount of this fee in calculating the fees for ANDAs.

    IV. DMF Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the DMF fee is owed by each person that owns a type II active pharmaceutical ingredient DMF that is referenced, on or after October 1, 2012, in a generic drug submission by an initial letter of authorization. This is a one-time fee for each DMF. This fee is due on the earlier of the date on which the first generic drug submission is submitted that references the associated DMF or the date on which the drug master file holder requests the initial completeness assessment. Under section 744B(a)(2)(D)(iii) of the FD&C Act, if a DMF has successfully undergone an initial completeness assessment and the fee is paid, the DMF will be placed on a publicly available list documenting DMFs available for reference.

    To calculate the DMF fee, FDA assessed the volume of DMF submissions over time. The Agency assessed DMFs from October 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, and concluded that averaging the number of fee-paying DMFs provided the most accurate model for predicting fee-paying DMFs for FY 2019. The monthly average of paid DMF submissions the Agency received in FY 2017 and FY 2018 is 38. To determine the FY 2019 projected number of fee-paying DMFs, the average of 38 DMF submissions is multiplied by 12 months, which results in 456 estimated FY 2019 fee-paying DMFs. FDA is estimating 456 fee-paying DMFs for FY 2019.

    The FY 2019 DMF fee is determined by dividing the DMF target revenue by the estimated number of fee-paying DMFs in FY 2019. Section 744B(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act specifies that the DMF fees will make up 5 percent of the $501,721,000, which is $25,086,050. Dividing the DMF revenue amount ($25,086,050) by the estimated fee-paying DMFs (456), and rounding to the nearest dollar, yields a DMF fee of $55,013 for FY 2019.

    V. Foreign Facility Fee Differential

    Under GDUFA II, the fee for a facility located outside the United States and its territories and possessions shall be $15,000 higher than the amount of the fee for a facility located in the United States and its territories and possessions. The basis for this differential is the extra cost incurred by conducting an inspection outside the United States and its territories and possessions.

    VI. FDF and CMO Facility Fees

    Under GDUFA II, the annual FDF facility fee is owed by each person who owns an FDF facility that is identified in at least one approved generic drug submission owned by that person or his affiliates. The CMO facility fee is owed by each person who owns an FDF facility that is identified in at least one approved ANDA but is not identified in an approved ANDA held by the owner of that facility or its affiliates. These fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act specifies that the FDF and CMO facility fee revenue will make up 20 percent of the $501,721,000, which is $100,344,200.

    To calculate the fees, data from FDA's Integrity Services (IS) were utilized as the primary source of facility information for determining the denominators of each facility fee type. IS is the master data steward for all facility information provided in generic drug submissions received by FDA. A facility's reference status in an approved generic drug submission is extracted directly from submission data rather than relying on data from self-identification. This information provided the number of facilities referenced as FDF manufacturers in at least one approved generic drug submission. Based on FDA's IS data, the FDF and CMO facility denominators are 180 FDF domestic, 216 FDF foreign, 73 CMO domestic, and 97 CMO foreign facilities for FY 2019.

    GDUFA II specifies that the CMO facility fee is to be equal to one-third the amount of the FDF facility fee. Therefore, to generate the target collection revenue amount from FDF and CMO facility fees ($100,344,200), FDA must weight a CMO facility as one-third of an FDF facility. FDA set fees based on the estimate of 180 FDF domestic, 216 FDF foreign, 24.33 CMO domestic (73 multiplied by one-third), and 32.33 CMO foreign facilities (97 multiplied by one-third), which equals 452.66 total weighted FDF and CMO facilities for FY 2019.

    To calculate the fee for domestic facilities, FDA first determines the total fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility differential by subtracting the fee revenue resulting from the foreign facility fee differential from the target collection revenue amount ($100,344,200) as follows. The foreign facility fee differential revenue equals the foreign facility fee differential ($15,000) multiplied by the number of FDF foreign facilities (216) plus the foreign facility fee differential ($15,000) multiplied by the number of CMO foreign facilities (97), totaling $4,695,000. This results in foreign fee differential revenue of $4,695,000 from the total FDF and CMO facility fee target collection revenue. Subtracting the foreign facility differential fee revenue ($4,695,000) from the total FDF and CMO facility target collection revenue ($100,344,200) results in a remaining facility fee revenue balance of $95,649,200. To determine the domestic FDF facility fee, FDA divides the $95,649,200 by the total weighted number of FDF and CMO facilities (452.66), which results in a domestic FDF facility fee of $211,305. The foreign FDF facility fee is $15,000 more than the domestic FDF facility fee, or $226,305.

    According to GDUFA II, the domestic CMO fee is calculated as one-third the amount of the domestic FDF facility fee. Therefore, the domestic CMO fee is $70,435, rounded to the nearest dollar. The foreign CMO fee is calculated as the domestic CMO fee plus the foreign fee differential of $15,000. Therefore, the foreign CMO fee is $85,435.

    VII. API Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA II, the annual API facility fee is owed by each person who owns a facility that is identified in (1) at least one approved generic drug submission or (2) in a Type II API DMF referenced in at least one approved generic drug submission. These fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act specifies the API facility fee will make up 7 percent of $501,721,000 in fee revenue, which is $35,120,470.

    To calculate the API facility fee, data from FDA's IS were utilized as the primary source of facility information for determining the denominator. As stated above, IS is the master data steward for all facility information provided in generic drug submissions received by FDA. A facility's reference status in an approved generic drug submission is extracted directly from submission data rather than relying on data from self-identification. This information provided the number of facilities referenced as API manufacturers in at least one approved generic drug submission.

    The total number of API facilities identified was 613; of that number, 79 were domestic and 534 were foreign facilities. The foreign facility differential is $15,000. To calculate the fee for domestic facilities, FDA must first subtract the fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility fee differential. FDA takes the foreign facility differential ($15,000) and multiplies it by the number of foreign facilities (534) to determine the total fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility differential. As a result of that calculation, the foreign fee differential revenue will make up $8,010,000 of the total API fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign facility differential fee revenue ($8,010,000) from the total API facility target revenue ($35,120,470) results in a remaining balance of $27,110,470. To determine the domestic API facility fee, we divide the $27,110,470 by the total number of facilities (613), which gives us a domestic API facility fee of $44,226. The foreign API facility fee is $15,000 more than the domestic API facility fee, or $59,226.

    VIII. Generic Drug Applicant Program Fee

    Under GDUFA II, if a person and its affiliates own at least one but not more than five approved ANDAs on October 1, 2018, the person and its affiliates shall owe a small business GDUFA program fee. If a person and its affiliates own at least 6 but not more than 19 approved ANDAs, the person and its affiliates shall owe a medium size operation GDUFA program fee. If a person and its affiliates own at least 20 approved ANDAs, the person and its affiliates shall owe a large size operation GDUFA program fee. These fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(E) of the FD&C Act specifies the GDUFA program fee will make up 35 percent of $501,721,000 in fee revenue, which is $175,602,350.

    To determine the appropriate number of applicants for each tier, the Agency has posted lists of approved ANDAs on the FDA website (https://www.fda.gov/gdufa) and asked applicants on the list to claim which ANDAs and affiliates belong to the parent company. The original list of approved ANDAs came from the Agency's Document Archiving, Reporting, and Regulatory Tracking System (DARRTS), which included all ANDAs with the status of “approved” as of April 30, 2018.

    In determining the appropriate number of approved ANDAs, the Agency has factored in a number of variables that could affect the collection of the target revenue: (1) Inactive ANDAs—applicants who have not submitted an annual report for one or more of their approved applications within the past 2 years; (2) FY 2018 Program Fee Arrears List—applicants who failed to satisfy the FY 2018 program fee and were unresponsive to attempts to collect; and (3) Prediction of Approvals Due to Goal Dates and Office of Generic Drugs Approval Rate—Due to the low percentage of additional approved ANDAs for a specified time period and the difficulties in determining how this population would affect the program fee tier of each company, this variable was not included in the determination of the FY 2019 GDUFA program fee. The list of original approved ANDAs from the DARRTS database as of April 30, 2018, shows 259 applicants in the small business tier, 62 applicants in the medium size tier, and 58 applicants in the large size tier. This list also takes into account all the withdrawals, consolidations, and transfer of ownerships from industry as of April 30, 2018. Factoring in all the variables for the second year of GDUFA II, the Agency estimates there will be 177 applicants in the small business tier, 49 applicants in the medium size tier, and 57 applicants in the large size tier for FY 2019.

    To calculate the GDUFA program fee, GDUFA II provides that large size operation generic drug applicants pay the full fee, medium size operation applicants pay two-fifths of the full fee, and small business applicants pay one-tenth of the full fee. To generate the target collection revenue amount from GDUFA program fees ($175,602,350), we must weigh medium and small tiered applicants as a subset of a large size operation generic drug applicant. FDA will set fees based on the weighted estimate of 17.70 applicants in the small business tier (177 multiplied by 10 percent), 19.60 applicants in the medium size tier (49 multiplied by 40 percent), and 57 applicants in the large size tier, arriving at 94.30 total weighted applicants for FY 2019.

    To generate the large size operation GDUFA program fee, FDA divides the target revenue amount of $175,602,350 by 94.30, which equals $1,862,167. The medium size operation GDUFA program fee is 40 percent of the full fee ($744,867), and the small business operation GDUFA program fee is 10 percent of the full fee ($186,217).

    IX. Fee Schedule for FY 2019

    The fee rates for FY 2019 are set out in table 4.

    Table 4—Fee Schedule for FY 2019 Fee category Fees rates for FY 2019 Applications: Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) $178,799 Drug Master File (DMF) 55,013 Facilities: Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) Domestic 44,226 API—Foreign 59,226 Finished Dosage Form (FDF)—Domestic 211,305 FDF—Foreign 226,305 Contract Manufacturing Organization (CMO)—Domestic 70,435 CMO—Foreign 85,435 GDUFA Program: Large size operation generic drug applicant 1,862,167 Medium size operation generic drug applicant 744,867 Small business operation generic drug applicant 186,217 X. Fee Payment Options and Procedures

    The new fee rates are effective October 1, 2018. To pay the ANDA, DMF, API facility, FDF facility, CMO facility, and GDUFA program fees, a Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet must be completed, available at https://www.fda.gov/gdufa and https://userfees.fda.gov/OA_HTML/gdufaCAcdLogin.jsp, and a user fee identification (ID) number must be generated. Payment must be made in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank by electronic check, check, bank draft, U.S. postal money order, credit card, or wire transfer. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. (Note: IOnly full payments are accepted; no partial payments can be made online.) Once an invoice is located, “Pay Now” should be selected to be redirected to https://www.pay.gov/public/home (Pay.gov). Electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by credit card is available for balances less than $25,000. If the balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments must be made using U.S. bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.

    FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to utilize Pay.gov, a web-based payment application, for online electronic payment. The Pay.gov feature is available on the FDA website after completing the Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet and generating the user fee ID number.

    The user fee ID number must be included on the check, bank draft, or postal money order and must be made payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. Payments can be mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If checks are to be sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979108, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only. For questions concerning courier delivery, U.S. Bank can be contacted at 314-418-4013. This telephone number is only for questions about courier delivery.) The FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979108) must be written on the check, bank draft, or postal money order.

    For payments made by wire transfer, the unique user fee ID number must be referenced. Without the unique user fee ID number, the payment may not be applied. If the payment amount is not applied, the invoice amount will be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Applicable wire transfer fees must be included with payment to ensure fees are fully paid. Questions about wire transfer fees should be addressed to the financial institution. The following account information should be used to send payments by wire transfer: U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, account number: 75060099, routing number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33. FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16067 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2456] Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases With Substrate Deposition That Results From Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases with Substrate Deposition That Results from Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies.” This document is intended to provide guidance to sponsors on the evidence necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of new drugs, including biological drugs, or new drug uses intended for slowly progressive, low-prevalence rare diseases that are associated with substrate deposition and are caused by single enzyme defects. This guidance applies only to those low-prevalence rare diseases with a well-characterized pathophysiology and in which changes in substrate deposition can be readily measured in relevant tissue(s).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2456 for “Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases with Substrate Deposition That Results from Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dragos Roman, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5152, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1285; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Slowly Progressive, Low-Prevalence Rare Diseases with Substrate Deposition That Results from Single Enzyme Defects: Providing Evidence of Effectiveness for Replacement or Corrective Therapies.” This document is intended to provide guidance to sponsors on the evidence necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of new drugs or new drug uses intended for slowly progressive, low-prevalence rare diseases that are associated with substrate deposition and are caused by single enzyme defects. This guidance applies only to those low-prevalence rare diseases with a well-characterized pathophysiology and in which changes in substrate deposition can be readily measured in relevant tissue(s).

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on providing evidence of effectiveness for replacement or corrective therapies intended for slowly progressive, low-prevalence rare diseases with substrate deposition that results from single enzyme defects. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 50 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755. The collections of information for expedited programs in the guidance for industry entitled “Expedited Programs for Serious Conditions—Drugs and Biologics” (available at https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm358301.pdf) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0765.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16036 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2493] ICU Medical, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 31 Abbreviated New Drug Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is withdrawing approval of 31 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.

    DATES:

    Approval is withdrawn as of August 27, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1671, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The holders of the applications listed in the table have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process described in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

    Application No. Drug Applicant ANDA 020345 Aminosyn-HF (amino acids) Injection, 8% ICU Medical, Inc., 600 North Field Dr., Lake Forest, IL 60045. ANDA 040723 Isosorbide Dinitrate Extended-Release Tablets USP, 40 milligrams (mg) Impax Laboratories, Inc., 30831 Huntwood Ave., Hayward, CA 94544. ANDA 064062 Amphotericin B for Injection USP, 50 mg/vial Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 19 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618. ANDA 064200 Cefotaxime for Injection USP, Equivalent to (EQ) 500 mg base/vial, EQ 1 gram (g) base/vial, and EQ 2 g base/vial Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Three Corporate Dr., Lake Zurich, IL 60047. ANDA 064201 Cefotaxime for Injection USP, EQ 10 g base/vial and EQ 20 g base/vial Do. ANDA 065251 Cefuroxime for Injection USP, EQ 75 g base/bag and EQ 225 g base/bag (Pharmacy Bulk Package) Samson Medical Technologies, LLC, 2050 Springdale Rd., P.O. Box 2730, Suite 400, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034. ANDA 070892 Metoclopramide Hydrochloride (HCl) Injection, EQ 10 mg base/2 milliliters (mL) Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., c/o Norbrook, Inc., 9401 Indian Creek Pkwy., Suite 680, Overland Park, KS 66210. ANDA 075309 Ticlopidine HCl Tablets USP, 250 mg Watson Laboratories, Inc., Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 425 Privet Rd., Horsham, PA 19044. ANDA 076797 Risperidone Oral Solution USP, 1 mg/mL Precision Dose, Inc., 722 Progressive Lane, South Beloit, IL 61080. ANDA 077656 Thrive (nicotine polacrilex) Gum USP (Chewable), EQ 4 mg base GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, 184 Liberty Corner Rd., Suite 200, Warren, NJ 07059. ANDA 077658 Thrive (nicotine polacrilex) Gum USP (Chewable), EQ 2 mg base Do. ANDA 080188 Testosterone Propionate Injection USP, 25 mg/mL, 50 mg/mL, and 100 mg/mL Watson Laboratories, Inc., Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ANDA 083398 Prednisolone Acetate Injectable Suspension, 25 mg/mL Do. ANDA 083764 Prednisolone Acetate Injectable Suspension, 50 mg/mL Do. ANDA 084072 Triamcinolone Diacetate Injection, 40 mg/mL Do. ANDA 084270 Triamcinolone Tablets USP, 4 mg Do. ANDA 084466 Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets, 0.125 mg/25 mg Do. ANDA 084604 Procainamide HCl Capsules, 250 mg Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ANDA 085693 Phentermine HCl Tablets USP, 8 mg Sandoz, Inc., 4700 Sandoz Dr., Wilson, NC 27893. ANDA 085863 Theophylline Elixir, 80 mg/15 mL Precision Dose, Inc. ANDA 087185 Ergoloid Mesylates Sublingual Tablets USP, 1 mg Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ANDA 087770 Sulfinpyrazone Capsules USP, 200 mg Do. ANDA 088648 Methotrexate Injection USP, EQ 25 mg base/mL Norbrook Laboratories, Ltd., c/o Norbrook, Inc. ANDA 088928 Chlorzoxazone Tablets USP, 250 mg Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ANDA 090663 Gemcitabine for Injection USP, EQ 200 mg base/vial and EQ 1 g base/vial Hameln RDS GmbH, c/o B&H Consulting Services, Inc., 50 Division St., Suite 206, Somerville, NJ 08876. ANDA 091469 Vancomycin HCl for Injection USP, EQ 10 g base/vial (Pharmacy Bulk Package) Mylan Laboratories, Ltd., c/o Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 781 Chestnut Ridge Rd., P.O. Box 4310, Morgantown, WV 26504. ANDA 202390 Tramadol HCl Tablets USP, 50 mg Accord Healthcare, Inc., 1009 Slater Rd., Suite 210-B, Durham, NC 27703. ANDA 203506 Oxymorphone HCl Extended-Release Tablets, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, and 40 mg Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., c/o Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., 2 Independence Way, Princeton, NJ 08540. ANDA 204320 Olanzapine Orally Disintegrating Tablets USP, 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg Ajanta Pharma, Ltd., c/o Ajanta Pharma USA, Inc., 440 U.S. Highway 22 East, One Grande Commons, Suite 150, Bridgewater, NJ 08807. ANDA 204706 Olopatadine HCl Ophthalmic Solution USP, EQ 0.1% base Zambon S.p.A., c/o Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, LLC, 9825 Kenwood Rd., Suite 203, Cincinnati, OH 45242. ANDA 207467 Nevirapine Extended-Release Tablets, 100 mg and 400 mg Technology Organized, LLC, 9191 Point Replete Dr., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of August 27, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the table that are in inventory on August 27, 2018 may continue to be dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative, whichever occurs first.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16037 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6380] Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.” FDA does not expect to grant any additional orphan-drug designation to drugs for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases (i.e., diseases or conditions with an overall prevalence of 200,000 or greater). This will help resolve an unintended loophole in the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) orphan exemption process where a sponsor holding a pediatric-subpopulation designation can submit a marketing application for use of its drug in the non-orphan adult population of that disease, get a pediatric-subpopulation designation for the pediatric subset of the disease, and, due to this designation, be exempt from conducting the pediatric studies normally required under PREA when seeking approval of the adult indication.

    DATES:

    The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6380 for “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Office of Orphan Products Development, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5295, Silver Spring, MD 20993. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aaron Friedman, Office of Orphan Products Development, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5209, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases.” In the Federal Register of December 20, 2017 (82 FR 60402), FDA published a notice of availability for the draft guidance entitled “Clarification of Orphan Designation of Drugs and Biologics for Pediatric Subpopulations of Common Diseases,” announcing that FDA does not expect to grant any additional orphan drug designation to drugs for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases (i.e., diseases or conditions with an overall prevalence of over 200,000 in the United States). In the Federal Register of January 12, 2018 (83 FR 1619), FDA announced that it was extending the comment period for this draft guidance for an additional 30 days. FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated December 2017. FDA does not expect to grant any additional orphan-drug designation to drugs for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases (i.e., diseases or conditions with an overall prevalence of 200,000 or greater). This will help resolve an unintended loophole in the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) orphan exemption process where a sponsor holding a pediatric-subpopulation designation can submit a marketing application for use of its drug in the non-orphan adult population of that disease, get a pediatric-subpopulation designation for the pediatric subset of the disease, and, due to this designation, be exempt from conducting the pediatric studies normally required under PREA when seeking approval of the adult indication.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on orphan designation of drugs and biologics for pediatric subpopulations of common diseases. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/Orphan or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 23, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16027 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2478] Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document notifies blood establishments that collect blood and blood components that we have determined babesiosis to be a relevant transfusion-transmitted infection (RTTI) and provides recommendations for donor screening, donation testing, donor deferral, and product management to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted babesiosis (TTB). The recommendations contained in the guidance apply to the collection of blood and blood components, except Source Plasma.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2478 for “Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie A. Butler, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Transfusion-Transmitted Babesiosis; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document notifies blood establishments that collect blood and blood components that we have determined babesiosis to be an RTTI under 21 CFR 630.3(h)(2) and provides recommendations for donor screening, donation testing, donor deferral, and product management to reduce the risk of TTB. The recommendations contained in the draft guidance document applies to the collection of blood and blood components, except Source Plasma.

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on recommendations for reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted babesiosis. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 606, 21 CFR 610.40(h), and 21 CFR 630.40 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16030 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2494] Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification Submissions; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; 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 the draft guidance entitled “Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions.” This draft guidance provides recommendations for premarket submissions for a new or modified peripheral vascular atherectomy device. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2494 for “Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions.” 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)).

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Misti Malone, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 120, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2520.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Atherectomy is an interventional procedure performed to debulk atherosclerotic plaque from diseased arteries. Atherectomy has been used in treatment of both coronary and peripheral arterial disease. FDA has developed this draft guidance for members of industry who submit and FDA staff who review premarket submissions for atherectomy devices used in the peripheral vasculature. When finalized, this guidance is intended to provide recommendations for information to include in premarket notifications (510(k)) for peripheral vascular atherectomy devices (e.g., descriptive characteristics, labeling, biocompatibility, sterility, non-clinical, animal, and clinical performance testing).

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Peripheral Vascular Atherectomy Devices—Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 16013 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the following FDA regulations and guidance have been approved by OMB as listed in the following table:

    21 CFR part Topic OMB Control No. 807, subpart E Premarket Notification 0910-0120 812 Investigational Device Exemption 0910-0078 820 Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP); Quality System (QS) Regulation 0910-0073 807, subparts A through D Electronic Submission of Medical Device Registration and Listing 0910-0625 50, 56 Protection of Human Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards 0910-0755 56 Institutional Review Boards 0910-0130 58 Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Regulations for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies 0910-0119 801.150(a)(2) and (e) Agreement for Shipments of Devices for Sterilization 0910-0131 Dated: July 20, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16029 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2775] Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspection, Recall, and Importer Reinspection Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the fiscal year (FY) 2019 fee rates for certain domestic and foreign facility reinspections, failures to comply with a recall order, and importer reinspections that are authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). These fees are effective on October 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Lewis, Office of Management, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rm. 2406, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-5957, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 107 of FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353) added section 743 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) to provide FDA with the authority to assess and collect fees from, in part: (1) The responsible party for each domestic facility and the U.S. agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection, to cover reinspection-related costs; (2) the responsible party for a domestic facility and an importer who does not comply with a recall order, to cover food 1 recall activities associated with such order; and (3) each importer subject to a reinspection to cover reinspection-related costs (section 743(a)(1)(A), (B), and (D) of the FD&C Act). Section 743 of the FD&C Act directs FDA to establish fees for each of these activities based on an estimate of 100 percent of the costs of each activity for each year (section 743(b)(2)(A)(i), (ii), and (iv)), and these fees must be made available solely to pay for the costs of each activity for which the fee was incurred (section 743(b)(3)). These fees are effective on October 1, 2018, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2019. Section 743(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the FD&C Act directs FDA to develop a proposed set of guidelines in consideration of the burden of fee amounts on small businesses. As a first step in developing these guidelines, FDA invited public comment on the potential impact of the fees authorized by section 743 of the FD&C Act on small businesses (76 FR 45818, August 1, 2011). The comment period for this request ended November 30, 2011. As stated in FDA's September 2011 “Guidance for Industry: Implementation of the Fee Provisions of Section 107 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act,” (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/FoodDefense/ucm274176.htm), because FDA recognizes that for small businesses the full cost recovery of FDA reinspection or recall oversight could impose severe economic hardship, FDA intends to consider reducing certain fees for those firms. FDA does not intend to issue invoices for reinspection or recall order fees until FDA publishes a guidance document outlining the process through which firms may request a reduction in fees.

    1 The term “food” for purposes of this document has the same meaning as such term in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)).

    In addition, as stated in the September 2011 Guidance, FDA is in the process of considering various issues associated with the assessment and collection of importer reinspection fees. The fee rates set forth in this notice will be used to determine any importer reinspection fees assessed in FY 2019.

    II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for FY 2019

    FDA is required to estimate 100 percent of its costs for each activity to establish fee rates for FY 2019. In each year, the costs of salary (or personnel compensation) and benefits for FDA employees account for between 50 and 60 percent of the funds available to, and used by, FDA. Almost all of the remaining funds (operating funds) available to FDA are used to support FDA employees for paying rent, travel, utility, information technology (IT), and other operating costs.

    A. Estimating the Full Cost per Direct Work Hour in FY 2019

    Full-time equivalent (FTE) reflects the total number of regular straight-time hours—not including overtime or holiday hours—worked by employees, divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other approved leave categories are considered “hours worked” for purposes of defining FTE employment.

    In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per direct work hour is to estimate the cost of an FTE or paid staff year. Calculating an Agency-wide total cost per FTE requires three primary cost elements: Payroll, non-payroll, and rent.

    We have used an average of past year cost elements to predict the FY 2019 cost. The FY 2019 FDA-wide average cost for payroll (salaries and benefits) is $157,731; non-payroll—including equipment, supplies, IT, general and administrative overhead—is $91,008; and rent, including cost allocation analysis and adjustments for other rent and rent-related costs, is $24,400 per paid staff year, excluding travel costs.

    Summing the average cost of an FTE for payroll, non-payroll, and rent, brings the FY 2019 average fully supported cost to $273,139 per FTE, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for reinspection and recall order fees for FY 2019 prior to including domestic or foreign travel costs as applicable for the activity.

    To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the FY 2019 average fully supported cost of $273,139 per FTE by the average number of supported direct FDA work hours in FY 2017—the last FY for which data are available. See table 1.

    Table 1—Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year in FY 2017 Total number of hours in a paid staff year 2,080 Less: 10 paid holidays −80 20 days of annual leave −160 10 days of sick leave −80 12.5 days of training −100 26.5 days of general administration −184 26.5 days of travel −212 2 hours of meetings per week −104 Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for Assignments 1,160

    Dividing the average fully supported FTE cost in FY 2019 ($273,139) by the total number of supported direct work hours available for assignment in FY 2017 (1,160) results in an average fully supported cost of $235 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding inspection travel costs, per supported direct work hour in FY 2019.

    B. Adjusting FY 2017 Travel Costs for Inflation To Estimate FY 2019 Travel Costs

    To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2019, FDA must estimate the cost of inflation in each year for FY 2018 and FY 2019. FDA uses the method prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provisions of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1)), the statutory method for inflation adjustment in the FD&C Act that FDA has used consistently. FDA previously determined the FY 2018 inflation rate to be 1.6868 percent; this rate was published in the FY 2018 PDUFA user fee rates notice in the Federal Register (September 14, 2017, 82 FR 43244). Utilizing the method set forth in section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA has calculated an inflation rate of 1.6868 percent for 2018 and 1.7708 percent for 2019, and FDA intends to use these inflation rates to make inflation adjustments for FY 2019 for several of its user fee programs; the derivation of this rate will be published in the Federal Register in the FY 2019 notice for the PDUFA user fee rates.

    The average fully supported cost per supported direct FDA work hour, excluding travel costs of $235 already takes into account inflation as the calculation above is based on FY 2019 predicted costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for reinspection and recall order fees for FY 2019 prior to including domestic or foreign travel costs as applicable for the activity. In FY 2017, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) spent a total of $5,846,091 for domestic regulatory inspection travel costs and General Services Administration Vehicle costs related to FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) field activities programs. The total ORA domestic travel costs spent is then divided by the 10,289 CFSAN and CVM domestic inspections, which averages a total of $568 per inspection. These inspections average 34.05 hours per inspection. Dividing $568 per inspection by 34.05 hours per inspection results in a total and an additional cost of $17 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per hour spent for domestic inspection travel costs in FY 2017. To adjust for the $17 per hour additional domestic cost inflation increases for FY 2018 and FY 2019, FDA must multiply the FY 2018 PDUFA inflation rate adjustor (1.016868) times the FY 2019 PDUFA inflation rate adjustor (1.017708) times the $17 additional domestic cost, which results in an estimated cost of $18 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour in addition to $235 for a total of $253 per paid hour ($235 plus $18) for each direct hour of work requiring domestic inspection travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2019 when domestic travel is required.

    In FY 2017, ORA spent a total of $2,566,050 on 480 foreign inspection trips related to FDA's CFSAN and CVM field activities programs, which averaged a total of $5,346 per foreign inspection trip. These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours) per trip. Dividing $5,346 per trip by 120 hours per trip results in a total and an additional cost of $45 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour spent for foreign inspection travel costs in FY 2017. To adjust $45 for inflationary increases in FY 2018 and FY 2019, FDA must multiply it by the same inflation factors mentioned previously in this document (1.016868 and 1.107708), which results in an estimated cost of $47 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour in addition to $235 for a total of $282 per paid hour ($235 plus $47) for each direct hour of work requiring foreign inspection travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2019 when foreign travel is required.

    Table 2—FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2019 Fee category Fee rates
  • for FY 2019
  • Hourly rate if domestic travel is required $253 Hourly rate if foreign travel is required 282
    III. Fees for Reinspections of Domestic or Foreign Facilities Under Section 743(a)(1)(A) A. What will cause this fee to be assessed?

    The fee will be assessed for a reinspection conducted under section 704 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374) to determine whether corrective actions have been implemented and are effective and compliance has been achieved to the Secretary of Health and Human Services' (the Secretary) (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction at a facility that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food for consumption necessitated as a result of a previous inspection (also conducted under section 704) of this facility, which had a final classification of Official Action Indicated (OAI) conducted by or on behalf of FDA, when FDA determined the non-compliance was materially related to food safety requirements of the FD&C Act. FDA considers such non-compliance to include non-compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement under section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) and section 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)). However, FDA does not consider non-compliance that is materially related to a food safety requirement to include circumstances where the non-compliance is of a technical nature and not food safety related (e.g., failure to comply with a food standard or incorrect font size on a food label). Determining when non-compliance, other than under sections 402 and 403(w) of the FD&C Act, is materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act may depend on the facts of a particular situation. FDA intends to issue guidance to provide additional information about the circumstances under which FDA would consider non-compliance to be materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act.

    Under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA is directed to assess and collect fees from “the responsible party for each domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) (21 U.S.C. 350d(b))) and the United States agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection” to cover reinspection-related costs.

    Section 743(a)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act defines the term “reinspection” with respect to domestic facilities as “1 or more inspections conducted under section 704 subsequent to an inspection conducted under such provision which identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of th[e] Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's satisfaction.”

    The FD&C Act does not contain a definition of “reinspection” specific to foreign facilities. In order to give meaning to the language in section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act to collect fees from the U.S. agent of a foreign facility subject to a reinspection, the Agency is using the following definition of “reinspection” for purposes of assessing and collecting fees under section 743(a)(1)(A), with respect to a foreign facility, “1 or more inspections conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary subsequent to such an inspection which identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction.”

    This definition allows FDA to fulfill the mandate to assess and collect fees from the U.S. agent of a foreign facility in the event that an inspection reveals non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act, causing one or more subsequent inspections to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction. By requiring the initial inspection to be conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary, the definition ensures that a foreign facility would be subject to fees only in the event that FDA, or an entity designated to act on its behalf, has made the requisite identification at an initial inspection of non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act. The definition of “reinspection-related costs” in section 743(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act relates to both a domestic facility reinspection and a foreign facility reinspection, as described in section 743(a)(1)(A).

    B. Who will be responsible for paying this fee?

    The FD&C Act states that this fee is to be paid by the responsible party for each domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) of the FD&C Act) and by the U.S. agent for each foreign facility (section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act). This is the party to whom FDA will send the invoice for any fees that are assessed under this section.

    C. How much will this fee be?

    The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on such reinspections, including time spent conducting the physical surveillance and/or compliance reinspection at the facility, or whatever components of such an inspection are deemed necessary, making preparations and arrangements for the reinspection, traveling to and from the facility, preparing any reports, analyzing any samples or examining any labels if required, and performing other activities as part of the OAI reinspection until the facility is again determined to be in compliance. The direct hours spent on each such reinspection will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 2 of this document.

    IV. Fees for Non-Compliance With a Recall Order Under Section 743(a)(1)(B) A. What will cause this fee to be assessed?

    The fee will be assessed for not complying with a recall order under section 423(d) (21 U.S.C. 350l(d)) or section 412(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350a(f)) to cover food recall activities associated with such order performed by the Secretary (and by delegation, FDA) (section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Non-compliance may include the following: (1) Not initiating a recall as ordered by FDA; (2) not conducting the recall in the manner specified by FDA in the recall order; or (3) not providing FDA with requested information regarding the recall, as ordered by FDA.

    B. Who will be responsible for paying this fee?

    Section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act states that the fee is to be paid by the responsible party for a domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) of the FD&C Act) and an importer who does not comply with a recall order under section 423 or under section 412(f) of the FD&C Act. In other words, the party paying the fee would be the party that received the recall order.

    C. How much will this fee be?

    The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on taking action in response to the firm's failure to comply with a recall order. Types of activities could include conducting recall audit checks, reviewing periodic status reports, analyzing the status reports and the results of the audit checks, conducting inspections, traveling to and from locations, and monitoring product disposition. The direct hours spent on each such recall will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 2 of this document.

    V. How must the fees be paid?

    An invoice will be sent to the responsible party for paying the fee after FDA completes the work on which the invoice is based. Payment must be made within 90 days of the invoice date in U.S. currency by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. Detailed payment information will be included with the invoice when it is issued.

    VI. What are the consequences of not paying these fees?

    Under section 743(e)(2) of the FD&C Act, any fee that is not paid within 30 days after it is due shall be treated as a claim of the U.S. Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.

    Dated: July 24, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16069 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition AGENCY:

    President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition (PCSFN) will hold its annual meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 21, 2018, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Newseum, Knight Conference Center 7th Floor, 555 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Holli M. Richmond, Executive Director, Office of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 560, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 276-9567. Information about PCSFN, including details about the upcoming meeting, can be obtained at www.fitness.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary functions of the PCSFN include (1) advising the President, through the Secretary, concerning progress made in carrying out the provisions of Executive Order 13265, as amended by Executive Order 13824, and recommending to the President, through the Secretary, actions to accelerate such progress; (2) recommending to the Secretary a national strategy to expand children's participation in youth sports, encourage regular physical activity, including active play and promote good nutrition for all Americans. Recommendations may address, but are not necessarily limited to, increasing awareness of the benefits of participation in sports and regular physical activity, as well as the importance of good nutrition; promoting private and public sector strategies to increase participation in sports, encourage regular physical activity, and improve nutrition; developing metrics that gauge youth sports participation and physical activity to inform efforts that will improve participation in sports and regular physical activity among young Americans; and establishing a national and local strategy to recruit volunteers who will encourage and support youth participation in sports and regular physical activity, through coaching, mentoring, teaching, or administering athletic and nutritional programs. The Council's performance of these functions shall take into account the Department of Health and Human Services' Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, including consideration for youth with disabilities.

    The Council shall meet, at a minimum, one time per fiscal year. The meeting will be held to (1) assess ongoing Council activities; and, (2) discuss and plan future projects and programs. The agenda for the planned meeting is being developed and will be posted at www.fitness.gov when it has been finalized.

    The meeting that is scheduled to be held on September 21, 2018, is open to the public and the media. Every effort will be made to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and/or special needs who wish to attend the meeting. Persons with disabilities and/or special needs should call (240) 276-9567 no later than close of business Monday, September 10, 2018, to request accommodations. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting are asked to pre-register by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling (240) 276-9567. Registration for public attendance must be completed before close of business Wednesday, September 12, 2018.

    Dated: July 12, 2018. Holli M. Richmond, Executive Director, Office of the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16056 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-35-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: Radiotherapeutics Against Somatostatin-Receptor Expressing Neuroendocrine Tumors AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to Molecular Targeting Technologies, Inc. (MTTI); a Delaware corporation, with its principle place of business in West Chester, Pennsylvania, to practice the inventions embodied in the patent application listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NHLBI Office of Technology Transfer and Development August 27, 2018 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated exclusive patent license should be directed to: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, 31 Center Drive, Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479, phone number 301-435-5019, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications thereof are the intellectual properties to be licensed under the prospective agreement to MTTI: HHS Ref. E-150-2016-1-PCT-01, International Patent Application PCT/US2017/054863 filed October 3, 2017, entitled “Chemical Conjugates of Evans Blue Derivatives and Their Use As Radiotherapy And Imaging Agents.”

    The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America. The prospective patent license will be granted worldwide and in a field of use not broader than radiotherapeutics for somatostatin-receptor expressing neuroendocrine tumors.

    The invention pertains to a radiotherapeutic against neuroendocrine tumors that express somatostatin receptor. Radionuclide therapies directed against tumors that express somatostatin receptors (SSTRs) have proven effective for the treatment of advanced, low- to intermediate-grade neuroendocrine tumors. The subject radiotherapeutic covered by the subject patent estate includes a somatostatin (SST) peptide derivative like octreotate (TATE), conjugated to an Evans Blue (EB) analog, and further chelated via DOTA to therapeutic radionuclide 177Lu, a beta emitter. The EB analog reversibly binds to circulating serum albumin and improves the pharmacokinetics of SST peptide derivatives and reduce peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy toxicity. EB analog conjugated to octreotate (EB-DOTATATE) has been shown by the inventors to provide reversible albumin binding in vivo and extended half-life in circulation. When EB-TATE is slowly released into the tumor microenvironment, tumor uptake and internalization into SSTR positive tumors resulted in delivery of radioactive particles and tumor cell killing. EB-TATE displayed significantly more favorable pharmacokinetics than TATE alone by achieving higher tumor to non-tumor penetration as evidenced by positron emission tomography.

    This notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive patent license will be royalty bearing and may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NHLBI receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are timely filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive patent license.

    Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: July 20, 2018. Michael A. Shmilovich, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Office of Technology Transfer and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16065 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; 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 grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; U01 SEP: Glycobiologists Alliance for Cancer Research.

    Date: August 30, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W102, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Shakeel Ahmad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Technology and Contract Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W102, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6349, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Program Project IV (P01).

    Date: September 27-28, 2018.

    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Sanita Bharti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W122, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5909, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 23, 2018. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16008 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice To Announce Commission of a Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, the U.S. Public Health Service's Oral Health Coordinating Committee announces the commission of a Surgeon General's Report presenting prominent issues affecting oral health. The report will document progress in oral health in the twenty years since the 2000 Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health, identify existing knowledge gaps, and articulate a vision for the future.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bruce A. Dye, DDS, MPH, Dental Epidemiology Officer, Office of Science Policy and Analysis, NIDCR, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Room 5B55, Rockville, MD, 20892. Phone: 301-496-7765, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of Problem: The charge for the first Surgeon General's report on oral health in 2000 was to define, describe, and evaluate the interaction between oral health and health and well-being (quality of life), through the lifespan in the context of changes in society. The overarching message from that report clearly communicated that oral health is essential to the general health and well-being of all Americans and can be achieved by all. In the intervening two decades, oral health has improved for many Americans, but not for all. Many Americans are retaining more of their natural teeth, complete tooth loss among older adults is at the lowest level ever measured, and many younger children have less untreated tooth decay. Over the past two decades, we have learned more about how changes across the lifespan can substantially influence oral health and how health promotion activities and interventions targeted for specific life stages can benefit oral health and quality of life. However, many Americans continue to experience unnecessary pain and complications from poor oral health that adversely affect their well-being, adding substantial economic and social costs. Poor oral health also impacts our nation's ability to recruit young adults for military service and maintain military readiness.

    Oral health workforce models and care delivery systems have evolved in the past two decades. There has been a substantial effort to incorporate early detection and preventive oral health measures into primary care settings and the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, and other health insurance programs have helped many Americans of all ages. Yet, as there have been some successes in integrating oral health into the broader health care system in the United States, many still view oral health care as a supplemental benefit, and not a priority benefit. This separate view of oral health negatively impacts our nation in a variety of ways. including the increasing use of emergency departments at substantial cost to treat dental pain and related conditions. Finally, the increasing problems of substance misuse and use disorders during the past two decades have impacted oral health at the patient, community, and provider level, which has raised awareness of the need to address dental provider prescribing patterns and pain management practices.

    The first Surgeon General's report on oral health addressed determinants for oral health and disease. Twenty years later, the knowledge gained from science and technology has continued to provide a better understanding of the etiology and natural history of oral and craniofacial diseases and conditions, and we have gained a better understanding of these determinants. This knowledge has led to therapeutic interventions that have improved oral health over the past two decades. Ongoing research is improving our understanding of the biological influences on oral health, the relationship between oral diseases and general health, the role of technology and advanced materials in improving dental care, and the benefits of good oral health to overall well-being and the community. Although we benefit from numerous advances that influence oral health, we still face challenges as we try to reach our goal of oral health for all.

    Approach: The scope of the Surgeon General's Report is intended to be broad and comprehensive, with the goal of mapping the current landscape of the key issues that affect oral health. It will present information from a variety of data sources such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and others. These sources highlight changes in oral health over time, providing opportunities to monitor how determinants for health have changed, and the effect of those changes over the past 20 years. The report is intended to: (1) Underscore the critical nature of poor oral health as a public health issue; (2) provide a comprehensive review of the importance of oral health throughout life; (3) describe important contemporary issues affecting oral health and the promise of science to transform the oral health of the nation; (4) outline a vision for future directions; and (5) educate, encourage, and call upon all Americans to take action.

    Potential Areas of Focus: Areas of focus in the report may include a description of the epidemiology of diseases and conditions that affect the craniofacial complex; a review of health promotion and disease prevention activities; factors that affect the etiology of poor oral health at the individual and population level; social determinants of health and their influence on oral health disparities; biological factors including the microbiome; social, economic, and health consequences of poor oral health; mental health, substance misuse and addiction impact on the oral health of individuals, providers, and communities; the state of oral health care access and coverage as it relates to prevention and treatment for dental diseases and related conditions; integration of oral health into primary health care settings; organization and financing of the provision of dental care within the health care system; ethical, legal, and policy issues; and the application of scientific research in the field, including methods, challenges, and current and future directions.

    Dated: July 21, 2018. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2018-16096 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License: Development and Commercialization of Cancer Immunotherapy AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Cancer Institute, an institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an Exclusive Patent License to practice the inventions embodied in the U.S. Patents and Patent Applications listed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice to Midissia Therapeutics (“Midissia”) located in San Francisco, CA.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before August 13, 2018 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES