Federal Register Vol. 83, No.159,

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 159 (August 16, 2018)

Page Range40653-40930
FR Document

83_FR_159
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
83 FR 40660 - Small Business Size RegulationsPDF
83 FR 40659 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z)PDF
83 FR 40778 - National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis DatabasePDF
83 FR 40777 - The President's National Infrastructure Advisory CouncilPDF
83 FR 40771 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Surveys and Interviews With Investigational New Drug Sponsors To Assess Current Communication Practices With Food and Drug Administration Review Staff Under the Sixth Authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee ActPDF
83 FR 40839 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the Initiation of Country Practice Review of TurkeyPDF
83 FR 40675 - Refund of Alcohol Excise TaxPDF
83 FR 40823 - Notice of Action Pursuant to Section 301: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and InnovationPDF
83 FR 40844 - Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40745 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 40744 - Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 40772 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40821 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 40757 - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 40677 - Special Local Regulation; Michigan Championships; Detroit River; Detroit, MIPDF
83 FR 40681 - Safety Zone; Sandusky Bicentennial Fireworks, Sandusky Bay, Sandusky, OHPDF
83 FR 40679 - Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NYPDF
83 FR 40748 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical CircumstancesPDF
83 FR 40755 - Marine Mammals; File No. 21938PDF
83 FR 40755 - Marine Mammals and Endangered SpeciesPDF
83 FR 40756 - Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 40750 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017PDF
83 FR 40752 - Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
83 FR 40793 - Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40792 - STEM Education Advisory Panel; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40745 - Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstance DeterminationPDF
83 FR 40758 - Extension of Comment Period, Draft Waste Incidental To Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, WashingtonPDF
83 FR 40787 - Certain Microperforated Packaging Containing Fresh Produce (II); Institution of InvestigationPDF
83 FR 40754 - Meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 40753 - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee MeetingPDF
83 FR 40841 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of Existing Information Collection Request: Lease and Interchange of VehiclesPDF
83 FR 40794 - New Postal ProductsPDF
83 FR 40653 - Seed Cotton Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ProgramsPDF
83 FR 40788 - Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
83 FR 40776 - National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40777 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 40776 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 40777 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of MeetingPDF
83 FR 40776 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
83 FR 40780 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Financial Management TemplatePDF
83 FR 40780 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Owner's Certification With HUD Tenant Eligibility and Rent ProceduresPDF
83 FR 40713 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and EnhancementsPDF
83 FR 40770 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMBPDF
83 FR 40784 - Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Categorical Exclusion; Gaver Ranch, Castroville, Monterey County, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 40783 - Habitat Conservation Plan for the Yelm Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, WashingtonPDF
83 FR 40791 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
83 FR 40793 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
83 FR 40786 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
83 FR 40781 - Habitat Conservation Plan for the Interior Least Tern and Application To Renew Incidental Take Permit; Gibson County, IndianaPDF
83 FR 40782 - Receipt of Application Incidental Take Permit; Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Phillips Single-Family Residence, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CaliforniaPDF
83 FR 40795 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
83 FR 40756 - Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; CorrectionPDF
83 FR 40843 - Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk ModelsPDF
83 FR 40759 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-545 and FERC-549c); Consolidated Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
83 FR 40763 - Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Modification of Procedural SchedulePDF
83 FR 40762 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLCPDF
83 FR 40764 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company StatusPDF
83 FR 40762 - Notice of Application: Northern Natural Gas CompanyPDF
83 FR 40761 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
83 FR 40685 - Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code CasesPDF
83 FR 40821 - 2018 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets: Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40660 - Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH Attendant Seats and Pilot SeatsPDF
83 FR 40768 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (OMB No. 3064-0072)PDF
83 FR 40708 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40789 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
83 FR 40789 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
83 FR 40744 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil RightsPDF
83 FR 40840 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing CompanyPDF
83 FR 40791 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: Proposed New Initiative: Accelerating Promising Practices for Small Libraries (APPS-L)PDF
83 FR 40683 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Federal Supply Schedule, Order-Level Materials; Technical AmendmentPDF
83 FR 40788 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
83 FR 40816 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges To Introduce a New Pricing TierPDF
83 FR 40803 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2 Entitled “Nasdaq Options Market-Fees and Rebates”PDF
83 FR 40805 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Under Rules 7014(e) and 7018(a)PDF
83 FR 40797 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Anticipatory HedgingPDF
83 FR 40800 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 7.35E Relating to the Auction Reference Price for a Trading Halt Auction Following a Regulatory HaltPDF
83 FR 40819 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Security Futures Risk Disclosure StatementPDF
83 FR 40808 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Rule 104 Governing Transactions by Designated Market MakersPDF
83 FR 40795 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend Section 140 and Section 142 of the NYSE American Company Guide To Eliminate the Initial Application Fee for SPACs Applying To List and Amend the Additional Shares Fee for Shares Issued in Conjunction With a Business Combination if the SPAC Remains Listed After Such Business CombinationPDF
83 FR 40800 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Spread-Crossing Eligible Remove Fee to $0.0009 Per Share for Executions at or Above $1.00 That Remove Non-Displayed LiquidityPDF
83 FR 40813 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to ICC's Treasury Operations Policies and ProceduresPDF
83 FR 40800 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Rules Related to Complex OrdersPDF
83 FR 40773 - National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human ServicesPDF
83 FR 40703 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40710 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
83 FR 40684 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 2018 Commercial Quota Harvested for the Commonwealth of MassachusettsPDF
83 FR 40775 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
83 FR 40774 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and AvailabilityPDF
83 FR 40774 - Opportunity to Co-Sponsor Office of Research Integrity WorkshopsPDF
83 FR 40793 - Information Collection: Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
83 FR 40754 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management ProgramsPDF
83 FR 40662 - Amendment of Chicago Class B and Chicago Class C Airspace; Chicago, ILPDF
83 FR 40715 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 2008 Ozone StandardsPDF
83 FR 40723 - Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Approval of Sulfur Dioxide RegulationsPDF
83 FR 40728 - Air Plan Approval; State of Iowa; Attainment Redesignation for 2008 Lead NAAQS and Associated Maintenance PlanPDF
83 FR 40757 - Availability of the Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment Draft Environmental Assessment, Arlington, VAPDF
83 FR 40748 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Rescission of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
83 FR 40733 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibit Directed Fishing for American Fisheries Act Program and Crab Rationalization Program Groundfish Sideboard Limits in the BSAI and GOAPDF
83 FR 40665 - Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter IndustriesPDF
83 FR 40884 - Qualified Business Income DeductionPDF
83 FR 40764 - Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Tribune Media Company, Applications for Transfer of Control of Tribune Media Company and Certain Subsidiaries, WDCW(TV)PDF
83 FR 40846 - Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged DataPDF

Issue

83 159 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Commodity Credit Corporation

Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Arkansas Advisory Committee, 40744 2018-17705 Illinois Advisory Committee, 40744-40745 2018-17643 Ohio Advisory Committee, 40745 2018-17706 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY, 40679-40681 2018-17697 Sandusky Bicentennial Fireworks, Sandusky Bay, Sandusky, OH, 40681-40683 2018-17698 Special Local Regulations: Michigan Championships, Detroit River, Detroit, MI, 40677-40679 2018-17699 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Seed Cotton Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage Programs, 40653-40659 2018-17681 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, 40756 2018-17693 Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Correction, 40756-40757 2018-17660 Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, 40757 2018-17700
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Washington, 40758-40759 2018-17687
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment, Arlington, VA, 40757-40758 2018-17573 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Iowa; Attainment Redesignation for 2008 Lead NAAQS and Associated Maintenance Plan, 40728-40732 2018-17583 Ohio; Approval of Sulfur Dioxide Regulations, 40723-40728 2018-17587 Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 2008 Ozone Standards, 40715-40723 2018-17590 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH Attendant Seats and Pilot Seats, 40660-40662 2018-17648 Amendment of Chicago Class B and Chicago Class C Airspace: Chicago, IL, 40662-40664 2018-17596 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus SAS Airplanes, 40708-40710 2018-17646 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 40703-40708 2018-17622 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 40710-40713 2018-17621 NOTICES Exemption Petitions; Summaries: The Boeing Company, 40840-40841 2018-17641 2018-17642 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Applications for Transfer of Control of Tribune Media Company and Certain Subsidiaries: Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Tribune Media Co.; WDCW(TV), 40764-40768 2018-17095 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40768-40770 2018-17647 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40759-40761 2018-17656 Applications: Northern Natural Gas Co., 40762-40763 2018-17652 Combined Filings, 40761-40762 2018-17651 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company Status: East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC; Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC; Armadillo Flats Wind Project, LLC; et al., 40764 2018-17653 Hydroelectric Applications: Grand River Dam Authority, 40763-40764 2018-17655 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC, 40762 2018-17654 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles, 40841-40842 2018-17683 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); CFR Correction, 40659 2018-17793 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40770-40771 2018-17670 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Adoption of Revised Guides: Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, 40665-40675 2018-17454 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Habitat Conservation Plan for the Yelm Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, WA, 40783-40784 2018-17668 Permit Applications: Incidental Take; Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Phillips Single-Family Residence, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 40782-40783 2018-17663 Incidental Take; Habitat Conservation Plan for the Interior Least Tern, Gibson County, IN, 40781-40782 2018-17664 Incidental Take; Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Categorical Exclusion, Gaver Ranch, Castroville, Monterey County, CA, 40784-40786 2018-17669 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Surveys and Interviews with Investigational New Drug Sponsors to Assess Current Communication Practices with Food and Drug Administration Review Staff Under the Sixth Authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, 40771-40772 2018-17715 Meetings: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 40772-40773 2018-17702 General Services General Services Administration RULES General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation: Federal Supply Schedule, Order-Level Materials; Technical Amendment, 40683-40684 2018-17639 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability, 40774-40775 2018-17617 National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 40773-40774 2018-17623 National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 40775-40776 2018-17618 Opportunity to Co-Sponsor Office of Research Integrity Workshops, 40774 2018-17615
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis Database, 40778-40780 2018-17717 Meetings: President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council, 40777-40778 2018-17716
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and Enhancements, 40713-40715 2018-17671 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multifamily Financial Management Template, 40780-40781 2018-17673 Owner's Certification with Tenant Eligibility and Rent Procedures, 40780 2018-17672 Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Proposed New Initiative; Accelerating Promising Practices for Small Libraries, 40791 2018-17640 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Qualified Business Income Deduction, 40884-40930 2018-17276 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 40750-40751 2018-17692 Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 40752-40753 2018-17691 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 40748 2018-17562 Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 40748-40750 2018-17696 Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 40745-40748 2018-17688 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Microperforated Packaging Containing Fresh Produce, 40787-40788 2018-17686 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: CERCLA, 40788 2018-17680 Clean Air Act, 40788-40789 2018-17637 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40789 2018-17644 Records Schedules, 40789-40791 2018-17645 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 40776 2018-17676 National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 40776 2018-17679 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 40776-40777 2018-17674 2018-17675 2018-17677 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder Fishery; 2018 Commercial Quota Harvested for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 40684 2018-17620 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Prohibit Directed Fishing for American Fisheries Act Program and Crab Rationalization Program Groundfish Sideboard Limits in the BSAI and GOA, 40733-40743 2018-17538 NOTICES Meetings: Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs, 40754-40755 2018-17612 Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 40754 2018-17685 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee, 40753-40754 2018-17684 Permit Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 21938, 40755-40756 2018-17695 Permits: Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, 40755 2018-17694 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 40786-40787 2018-17665 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 40791-40793 2018-17666 2018-17667 Meetings: Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, 40793 2018-17690 STEM Education Advisory Panel, 40792 2018-17689 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code Cases, 40685-40703 2018-17650 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, 40793-40794 2018-17613 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Risk Models, 40843-40844 2018-17659 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 40794-40795 2018-17682 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Meetings: Board of Directors, 40795 2018-17662 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged Data, 40846-40881 2018-14365 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Cboe Exchange, Inc., 40800-40803 2018-17628 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 40819-40821 2018-17631 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 40813-40816 2018-17627 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 40800 2018-17626 Nasdaq PHLX, LLC, 40797-40800 2018-17633 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 40808-40813 2018-17630 NYSE American LLC, 40795-40797, 40800 2018-17629 2018-17632 NYSE Arca, Inc., 40816-40818 2018-17636 The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, 40803-40808 2018-17634 2018-17635 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Small Business Size Regulations; CFR Correction, 40660 2018-17794 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings Preparation for the International Maritime Organization Sub-Committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments, 40821 2018-17701 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES 2018 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, 40821-40823 2018-17649 China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation, 40823-40838 2018-17709 Meetings: Initiation of Country Practice Review of Turkey; Generalized System of Preferences, 40839-40840 2018-17712 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Refund of Alcohol Excise Tax, 40675-40677 2018-17710
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Refund of Alcohol Excise Tax, 40675-40677 2018-17710 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans, 40844 2018-17708 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 40846-40881 2018-14365 Part III Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, 40884-40930 2018-17276 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.

83 159 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1412 RIN 0560-AI40 Seed Cotton Changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC), Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs AGENCY:

Farm Service Agency and Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule revises the eligibility requirements, enrollment procedures, and payment calculation for ARC and PLC required to conform with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA). BBA amends the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill) to add seed cotton as a covered commodity and remove generic base acres from ARC and PLC. This rule also amends provisions to include seed cotton yields, allocation of generic base acres, election of ARC-County Option (ARC-CO) or PLC for seed cotton base acres, and enrollment for 2018. This rule also makes some minor, clarifying changes to the administration section.

DATES:

Effective Date: August 16, 2018.

2018 ARC and PLC signup deadline: September 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Orr; telephone, (202) 720-7641. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ARC Program is an income support program which provides payments on historical base acres when actual crop revenue for a covered commodity declines below a specified guarantee level. The PLC Program provides payments on historical base acres when the price for a covered commodity declines below its “reference price.” Eligible producers were required to make a decision to participate in either ARC or PLC, but not both, for the 2014 through 2018 crop years. ARC and PLC are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

The regulation in 7 CFR part 1412 as implemented in 2014 for the ARC and PLC Programs specified covered commodities authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill (Pub L. 113-79; 7 U.S.C. 9011-9019). BBA amends the 2014 Farm Bill by adding seed cotton as a “covered commodity” for the 2018 crop year. Since seed cotton will be included in the existing ARC or PLC programs, FSA must establish certain program values including yields and prices to implement the changes.

Upland cotton, which had previously been a covered commodity under prior FSA administered CCC commodity programs, was no longer a covered commodity beginning with the 2014 Farm Bill; therefore, producers with historical upland cotton base acres were ineligible for assistance under ARC and PLC. Base acres of upland cotton under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) in effect as of September 30, 2013, subject to any adjustment or reduction, became “generic base acres” beginning with the 2014 crop year. Under terms of BBA, if a covered commodity, including seed cotton, was not planted or prevented from being planted on the farm during the 2009 through 2016 years, the generic base acres become unassigned base acres, which are not eligible for any ARC or PLC benefits. Generic base acres no longer exist beginning with the 2018 crop year.

Seed Cotton Changes; PLC Yield; Generic Base Acres Allocation

In order for an owner to take advantage of the BBA provisions for seed cotton, BBA specifies that a covered commodity, including seed cotton, must have been planted or prevented from being planted on the farm during the 2009 through 2016 years. If the farm had land enrolled under a Conservation Reserve Program contract and base acres were reduced as a result of that enrollment during the 2009 through 2016 years, the owner of that farm may allocate generic base acres to seed cotton base acres or other base acres based on the provisions of BBA.

PLC requires a reference price for all covered commodities; BBA has established a reference price for seed cotton of $0.367 per pound.

Determining a covered commodity yield is a necessary component to PLC. As amended, the 2014 Farm Bill and 7 CFR 1412.31 provide that the farm PLC yield for seed cotton will be initially set at 2.4 times the payment yield for upland cotton established under the 2008 Farm Bill (7 U.S.C. 8714(e)(3)). As amended, the 2014 Farm Bill and 7 CFR 1412.33, specify that any current owner of the farm has a one-time option to update the PLC yield. Any current owner of a farm may update the PLC yield, which was the counter-cyclical payment yield under the former Direct and Counter-cyclical Program, by certifying pounds of upland cotton lint in years in which upland cotton was planted on base acres from 2008 through 2012, which will then be averaged. Years in which the producer had no planted acres are not included in the simple average computation. The average yield for 2008 through 2012, excluding years in which no upland cotton was grown, will be multiplied by 90 percent, and the result will be multiplied by 2.4 to obtain a new PLC payment yield of pounds of seed cotton.

In addition to updating the payment yield, current owners of a farm with generic base acres will be allowed to determine how those generic base acres are allocated as base acres of other covered commodities on the farm. As specified in BBA and in § 1412.25, there are three options as follows; the producers may choose only one for allocating generic base acres on the farm:

1. Multiply the number of generic base acres in crop year 2018 by 80 percent to determine a total for seed cotton base acres. The remaining 20 percent will become unassigned base acres.

2. If a farm has history of planting upland cotton from 2009 through 2012 and the simple average of planted and prevented from being planted upland cotton during that time period is greater than 80 percent of the generic base acre total in crop year 2018, generic base acres may be allocated to seed cotton base acres based on that simple average, not to exceed 100 percent of the generic base acres on the farm. If the simple average is less than 100 percent of the number of generic base acres, the residual generic base acres will become unassigned base acres.

3. Allocate the generic base acres on the farm to the 4-year simple average of the planted and prevented from planted covered commodities on the farm during the 2009 through 2012 crop years. The allocation is based on the share of each covered commodity in the total of covered commodities planted on the farm multiplied by the number of generic base acres on the farm. Years in which there were no covered commodities planted on generic acres will be used in the calculation of the simple average. Using this option eliminates unassigned base acres on the farm. For example:

a. A farm has 100 cropland acres, 100 generic base acres, and had the following planted acres:

○ For 2009, 25 acres of upland cotton and 75 acres of corn;

○ For 2010, 75 acres of upland cotton and 25 acres of corn;

○ For 2011, no acres of covered commodities; and

○ For 2012, 100 acres of upland cotton.

b. The simple average of the two planted covered commodities is 25 acres of corn and 50 acres of upland cotton.

c. Corn, from b. above, is 33.33 percent of the total covered commodities planted on the farm (25 divided by 75 equals 33.33 percent), leaving 66.67 percent planted to upland cotton.

d. Completing the calculation, 33.33 percent times 100 generic base acres equals 33.33 base acres of corn and 66.67 percent multiplied by 100 generic base acres equals 66.67 base acres of seed cotton.

If an owner fails to make an allocation of generic base acres and has a covered commodity, including seed cotton, that was planted or prevented from being planted during the 2009 through 2016 crop years, seed cotton base acres will be determined by FSA using the first option listed above, as is required by BBA.

PLC and ARC-CO Election, Allocation by FSA and Enrollment

After the yield update and base acre allocation is completed, all current producers on a farm with seed cotton base acres, except for farms having a valid ARC-Individual Farm Option (ARC-IC) election, must affirmatively and unanimously elect PLC or ARC-CO for seed cotton base acres during the single election period following a similar method to the previous election process in 2015. As required by BBA, if a unanimous election is not made, the producers on the farm will be deemed to have elected PLC for the seed cotton base acres for the 2018 crop year as specified in 7 CFR 1412.74; if the farm is enrolled for 2018, it will be deemed to have PLC or ARC-CO benefits, as may be applicable for any covered commodity (including seed cotton), based on any valid or default election on the farm. This provision is specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and is not changed by BBA; neither FSA nor CCC has any discretion to specify a different policy for farms that do not have a valid election made during the election period. During the previous election period under the 2014 Farm Bill, the producers on farms with generic base acres had the opportunity to make an election on all 21 covered commodities or have a default election of PLC apply; those elections remain in place and therefore, for the 2018 crop year it will only be necessary for all current producers on the farm to make an election of PLC or ARC-CO for seed cotton base acres. New elections for ARC-IC or for other covered commodities will not be permitted. Farms having a valid election of ARC-IC will continue to have ARC-IC as the election for the entire farm and for all covered commodities including seed cotton that was added as a covered commodity effective with the 2018 crop year for the life of the 2014 Farm Bill.

Implementing these changes is a multi-step process and all steps must be completed in order by the appropriate person or legal entity as follows:

1. FSA will make a determination that a covered commodity was planted or prevented planted on the farm from 2009 through 2016;

2. FSA will make a determination of the planting history of covered commodities on the farm from 2008 through 2012;

• 2008 through 2012 is for calculating a seed cotton PLC yield, and

• 2009 through 2012 is for determining how generic base acres on a farm may be allocated;

3. A current owner will make an allocation of generic base acres according to § 1412.25;

4. A current owner will make a determination of the PLC yield and update of that yield according to 7 CFR 1412.31;

5. The current producer(s) will make an election of either PLC or ARC-CO for seed cotton base acres according to § 1412.71; and

6. The current producer(s) will enroll the applicable farm for the 2018 crop year according to § 1412.41.

As indicated above, the last step in the multi-step process is to enroll the farm for 2018. To participate in 2018, all eligible producers on farms must enroll following allocation and election to be potentially eligible for PLC and ARC benefits. BBA was enacted on February 9, 2018, and 2018 PLC and ARC enrollment had already begun. However, because BBA changed the conditions of contract participation for any farms having generic base acres, all farms having generic base acres that previously enrolled for 2018 must go through the process outlined above and, after that process is completed, reenroll the farm for 2018. Previous 2018 enrollments of farms having generic base acres will not be recognized as valid, as the provisions of BBA eliminate generic base acres. CCC has no authority to enter into 2018 contracts having generic base acres. As was the case with previous crop year enrollments, enrollments of portions of a farm are not allowed.

General Eligibility Requirements

The general eligibility requirements are explained in the ARC or PLC contract appendix and in 7 CFR part 1412, except for adding seed cotton to the list of covered commodities.

Sharing Payments

Each eligible producer on a farm will be given the opportunity to enroll in ARC or PLC for a payment share determined to be fair and equitable as agreed to by all the producers on the farm and approved by the county committee. As specified in § 1412.54(b), each producer leasing a farm must provide the FSA county committee with a copy of their written lease or, in the absence of a written lease, must provide a complete written description of the terms and conditions of any oral agreement or lease. The general eligibility requirements are explained in the ARC or PLC contract appendix and on 7 CFR part 1412, except for adding seed cotton to the list of a covered commodity. An owner's or landlord's signature, as applicable, affirming a zero share on a contract may be accepted as evidence of a cash lease between the owner or landlord and tenant, as applicable, as determined by FSA. For farms with seed cotton base acres, such signature or signatures, if entered on the contract to satisfy the requirement of furnishing a written lease, must be entered on the application by September 30, 2018.

Signup Deadline

The signup deadline is September 28, 2018 for 2018 ARC and PLC.

Notice and Comment

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This rule involved matters relating to benefits and is therefore being published as a final rule without the prior opportunity for comments. In addition, the regulations to implement the provisions of Title I and the administration of Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill are exempt from the notice and comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), as specified in section 1601(c)(2) of the 2014 Farm Bill.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771 and 13777

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” requires that in order to manage the private costs required to comply with Federal regulations that for every new significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be offset by the elimination of at least two prior regulations. The OMB guidance in M-17-21, dated April 5, 2017, specifies that “transfer rules” are not covered by Executive Order 13771. Transfer rules are Federal spending regulatory actions that cause only income transfers between taxpayers and program beneficiaries. Therefore, this is considered a transfer rule by OMB and is not covered by Executive Order 13771.

Cost Benefit Analysis Summary

Estimates of transfer payments from these ARC and PLC programs are based on supply, demand and price conditions and FSA projections for the 2018 crop. Based on the projections, the net increase in 2018-crop ARC and PLC payments is expected to be around $743 million. Allocation of generic base is expected to increase ARC and PLC payments by $1,067 million ($917 million for seed cotton and $150 million for other covered commodities) with offsets of $324 million from eliminating ARC and PLC payments on attributed generic base.

The changes are expected to have marginal impacts on supply, demand, and prices because the impacts are spread across the covered commodities and acreage shifts are expected to represent a small percentage of the respective covered commodity planted acreage. Peanut planted acreage is expected to decrease by approximately 15 percent, but peanut prices are not expected to change significantly because of ample peanut supplies. Peanut acres are expected to shift to other commodities such as corn and soybeans with greater market returns because eliminating generic base decouples ARC and PLC payments from planting decisions. Most seed cotton base acres are expected to elect and enroll in PLC.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA, Pub. L. 104-121), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because neither CCC nor FSA are not required by Administrative Procedure Act or any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking.

Environmental Review

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). This final rule will revise ARC and PLC, as mandated by BBA, to add a single commodity, seed cotton. The legislative intent for revising ARC and PLC programs is to provide income support to the same group of producers that were previously eligible for the earlier and now-discontinued programs, direct and counter-cyclical payment program and average crop revenue election program. On February 22, 2017, FSA completed an environmental review of ARC and PLC. FSA has determined that the addition of the commodity to the programs does not alter the environmental impacts, as assessed, or the related decisions. Therefore, FSA will not prepare a new environmental evaluation, assessment, or impact statement for this regulatory action.

Executive Order 12372

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affect by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule will not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted.

Executive Order 13132

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The Executive Order 13175 requires to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that required tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

SBREFA

This rule is a major rule under the SBREFA (Pub. L. 104-121). SBREFA normally requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Section 808 of SBREFA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. Section 1601(c)(3) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that the authority in Section 808 of SBREFA be used in implementing the changes required by Title I of the 2014 Farm Bill, as amended, such as for the changes being made by this rule. Consistent with section 1601(c)(3) of the 2014 Farm Bill, FSA therefore finds that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule because it would delay implementation of seed cotton as a covered commodity for ARC and PLC as required by the 2014 Farm Bill, as amended. The regulation needs to be effective to provide adequate time for producers to update base acres and yields in preparation for enrollment for 2018. Therefore, this rule is effective on the September 30, 2018.

Federal Assistance Programs

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies are:

10.112—Price Loss Coverage 10.113—Agriculture Risk Coverage Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The regulations in this rule are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in section 1601(c) of the 2014 Farm Bill, which provides that these regulations be promulgated and administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E-Government Act Compliance

FSA and CCC are committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1412

Cotton, Feed grains, Oilseeds, Peanuts, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Soil conservation, Wheat.

For the reasons discussed above, CCC amends 7 CFR part 1412 as follows:

PART 1412—AGRICULTURE RISK COVERAGE, PRICE LOSS COVERAGE, AND COTTON TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 1412 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1508b, 7911-7912, 7916, 8702, 8711-8712, 8751-8752, and 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.

Subpart A—General Provisions 2. Amend § 1412.1 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words and punctuation “, generic base acres,” and add the words and punctuation “seed cotton;” immediately before the words “pulse crops”. b. Revise paragraph (b). c. In paragraph (c), remove the words “CTAP application or the”; d. In paragraph (d), remove the words “CTAP application or”; and e. In paragraph (e), remove the words and punctuation “and for CTAP, assistance under this part will be based on the physical location of the farm, as specified in part 718 of this title”.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1412.1 Applicability, changes in law, interest, application, and contract provisions.

(b) For crop year 2018, this part specifies how:

(1) Generic base acres are allocated to seed cotton base acres and unassigned base acres (generic base acres are not in effect for crop year 2018);

(2) A payment yield for seed cotton base acres is established;

(3) An election is made on seed cotton base acres; and

(4) Contracts are enrolled with seed cotton base acres.

3. Amend § 1412.2 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words and punctuation “, PLC, and CTAP” and add the words “and PLC” in their place; and b. Revise paragraphs (e) and (f).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1412.2 Administration.

(e) The Deputy Administrator has the authority to permit State and county committees to waive or modify any non-statutory deadline specified in this part.

(f) Items of general applicability to program participants, including, but not limited to, application periods, application deadlines, internal operating guidelines issued to State and county offices, prices, yields, and payment factors established for ARC or PLC, are not subject to appeal in accordance with part 780 of this title.

4. Amend § 1412.3 as follows: a. Remove the definitions of “2014 farm structure” and “Application”; b. In the definition of “Base acres”, revise the last sentence; c. In the definition of “Contract period”, remove the words “or application” and words and punctuation “or “application” ”, and remove the word “the” immediately before the words “each program year”; d. Add the definition of “Counter-cyclical payment yield” in alphabetical order; e. In the definition of “Covered commodity”, add the words and punctuation “seed cotton,” immediately before the words “pulse crops”; f. Remove the definition of “Eligible subsequently planted crop acreage”; g. In the definition of “Generic base acres”, remove the last two sentences and add in their place one new sentence; h. In the definition of “Initial crop”, remove the words “or cotton”; i. In paragraph (3) of the definition of “Marketing year”, add the words and punctuation “, seed cotton,” immediately after the word “Peanuts”; j. In the definition of “Payment acres”, remove paragraph (3); k. Revise the definition of “Payment yield”; l. Amend the definition of “Reference price” as follows: i. In paragraph (13) remove the word “and”; ii. In paragraph (14) remove the punctuation “.” and add in its place the words and punctuation “; and”; and iii. Add new paragraph (15); m. Add the definition of “Seed cotton” in alphabetical order; n. In the definition of “Supportive and necessary contractual documents”, remove the words “or CTAP application”; and o. Add the definition of “Unassigned base acres” in alphabetical order.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1412.3 Definitions.

Base acres * * * The term “base acres” includes any unassigned base acres.

Counter-cyclical payment yield means the farm's upland cotton yield as specified in the regulations for 7 CFR part 1412 that were in effect as of September 30, 2013.

Generic base acres * * * For 2018, generic base acres are subject to allocation according to § 1412.25.

Payment yield means for a farm for a covered commodity, the yield established under subpart C of this part.

Reference price * * *

(15) Seed cotton, $0.367 per pound.

Seed cotton means unginned upland cotton that includes both lint and seed.

Unassigned base acres means the number of acres derived from generic base acres where no ARC or PLC payments are generated or earned.

Subpart B—Establishment of Base Acres for a Farm for Covered Commodities 5. Amend § 1412.23 as follows: a. Revise the section heading; and b. In paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), remove the words “and generic base acres” in each place they appear.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1412.23 Base acres, and Conservation Reserve Program.
6. Amend § 1412.24 as follows: a. Revise the section heading; b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words and punctuation “and generic base acres (which are equal to upland cotton base acres used for CTAP)”; c. Revise paragraph (b); d. In paragraph (d)(1), remove the words and punctuation “, including generic base acres (and the equal amount of upland cotton base acres),”; and e. In paragraph (f), remove the words and punctuation “and generic base acres (resulting in an equal amount of upland cotton base acres)”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1412.24 Limitation of total base acres on a farm.

(b) The Deputy Administrator will give the owner of the farm the opportunity to select the base acres against which any reduction required in this section will be made. Absent the owner selecting the base acres for reduction, CCC will apply a pro-rata reduction against the base acres before computing and issuing any payments for the program year when a reduction becomes necessary.

7. Revise § 1412.25 to read as follows:
§ 1412.25 Allocation of generic base acres on a farm and updating of records.

(a) Any or all of the current owner(s) of a farm with generic base acres adjusted as of February 9, 2018, will have a one-time opportunity in an allocation period as announced by FSA, if a covered commodity including upland cotton was planted or prevented from being planted during the 2009 through 2016 crop years, to:

(1) Allocate the farm's generic base acres to seed cotton base acres in a quantity equal to the greater of:

(i) 80 percent of the generic base acres on the farm; or

(ii) The average number of upland cotton acres planted and prevented from being planted on the farm during the 2009 through 2012 crop years, not to exceed the total generic base acres on the farm; or

(2) Allocate base acres for covered commodities, including seed cotton, by applying paragraph (e) of this section.

(b) Under no circumstances will the allocation of generic base acres on a farm as specified in paragraph (a) of this section result in any increase in total base acres on a farm. Additionally, if any current owner submits a written statement that conflicts with the allocation request or expresses written disagreement with the allocation filed according to paragraph (a) of this section, no allocation will be approved for the farm unless all the current owners of the farm provide FSA with written evidence of the dispute resolution during the allocation period.

(c) FSA will provide the farm operator and owners of record with a summary of all covered commodities P&CP acres and subsequently planted crop acreage for the 2008 through 2012 crop years (as reported to FSA on acreage reports filed with FSA in each of those years). Acreage not reported to FSA by producers will not be included in the summary. The summary of records specified in paragraph (c) of this section is intended to assist current owners of farms with the one-time opportunity for generic base acre allocation as provided in this section. Any current owner of a farm may also at any time visit the FSA county office and request to obtain a copy of the summary referenced in paragraph (c) of this section.

(d) Current owners will be provided a one-time opportunity to update the records identified in paragraph (c) of this section during the allocation period, provided that there are crop insurance records (or other verifiable documentation available to support those requested updates). In the event that an update to a farm's P&CP acres of a covered commodity for 2009 through 2012 causes any payment under another FSA or CCC program to become unearned, the overpayment must be refunded to FSA or CCC in accordance with the rules for that program and the FSA or CCC regulations governing overpayment (7 CFR parts 718 and 1403).

(e) After an update as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner may allocate the farm's generic base acres during the allocation period based on a proration of each covered commodity's P&CP acres or subsequently planted crop acreage in crop years 2009 through 2012 to the total P&CP acres or subsequently planted crop acreage of all covered commodities during that time.

(f) Current owners can allocate generic base acres at any time during the allocation period without receiving or requesting the summary records, and, therefore, failure to receive a summary record from FSA is not grounds for appeal or extension of the allocation period.

(g) The option to allocate generic base acres is an “all or nothing” decision for the farm. Generic base acres will not be retained, partially or in whole. A decision by any current owner to allocate generic base acres on a farm in accordance with this section is final and binding if made according to this section during the allocation period unless that allocation is withdrawn in writing by that current owner or another current owner. If another current owner subsequently files a different allocation request in whatever time remains in the stated allocation period or if there are conflicting allocation requests of current owners in the allocation period, FSA will not make the allocation unless the conflict is resolved via written agreement between the current owners who filed the conflicting requests. In the event that a resolution is not presented, the provisions of paragraph (h) of this section will take effect. In the case of submitting evidence of resolution, the written agreement must be filed with FSA in the allocation period. Any and all updates and allocation requests mentioned in this section are subject to review and approval or disapproval by FSA for CCC.

(h) In the event that an owner fails to make an allocation according to this part and the farm has met the planting requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, the farm will receive an allocation of seed cotton base acres in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.

Subpart C—Establishment of Price Loss Coverage Yields and Submitting Production 8. Amend § 1412.31 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the word “The” and add the words “Except for seed cotton” in its place and remove “§ 1412.33 or § 1412.34, whichever is applicable” and add “§ 1412.34” in their place. b. Redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and add new paragraph (b). c. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), remove the words and punctuation “or for which a covered commodity is planted on generic base acres,”.
§ 1412.31 PLC yields for covered commodities.

(b) The PLC yield for seed cotton on the farm is equal to the counter-cyclical payment yield established for upland cotton on the farm as in effect September 30, 2013, times 2.4, unless the PLC yield is updated as specified in § 1421.33.

9. Amend § 1412.32 as follows: a. Revise the section heading; b. In paragraph (a), remove the words and punctuation “(except generic base acres),”; and c. In paragraph (e), remove the reference to “§ 1412.35” and add “§ 1412.36” in its place.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1412.32 Updating PLC yield for all covered commodities except seed cotton.
§ § 1412.33 through 1412.35 [Redesignated as §§ 1412.34 through 1412.36]
10. Redesignate §§ 1412.33 through 1412.35 as §§ 1412.34 through 1412.36. 11. Add new § 1412.33 to read as follows:
§ 1412.33 Updating PLC yield for seed cotton.

(a) For a farm that has seed cotton base acres as adjusted, in excess of zero acres, a current owner of the farm has a one-time opportunity in a specified period, as announced by FSA, to update the PLC yield equal to 90 percent of the upland cotton's 2008 through 2012 average yield per planted acre, excluding from the average any year that no acreage was planted to upland cotton, times 2.4. If the yield per planted acre in any of the years 2008 through 2012 is less than 75 percent of the average of the county yield, then 75 percent of the average of the 2008 through 2012 county yields will be substituted for that year.

(b) The current owner of the farm may retain the PLC yield or update the PLC yield.

(c) PLC yields are exclusively used for PLC. However, any owner of a farm can update the seed cotton PLC yield as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of program election, enrollment, or participation.

(d) A decision by any current owner of a farm to update the seed cotton PLC yield as specified in this section is final and binding unless that decision to update the yield is withdrawn by that current owner or a different yield update is made by that current owner or another current owner. If that current owner or another current owner requests a different PLC yield update for the covered commodity during the yield update period specified in paragraph (a) of this section, that update will become final.

(e) All PLC yield updates are subject to review and approval by FSA as specified in § 1412.36. FSA's decision to issue payments based on the PLC yield updated by an owner is subject to verification and spot check by FSA at any time.

(f) Yield updates in this section will be permitted using the current owner's certification of yield. The certification is subject to spot check or verification by FSA at any time. If selected for spot check or verification, the owner must submit evidence specified in § 1412.35 to support the certified yield.

§ 1412.34 [Amended]
12. In newly redesignated § 1412.34(b)(2)(i) and (c), remove each cross reference to “§ 1412.34” and add “§ 1412.35” in their place. Subpart D—ARC and PLC Contract Terms and Enrollment Provisions for Covered Commodities 13. Amend § 1412.41 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(2); b. In paragraph (b), remove the words and punctuation “June 1 of the applicable contract year,” and add in their place “September 30, 2018,”; c. In paragraph (e), remove “2015 or subsequent” and add “2018” in its place, and remove “2015 and subsequent crop year”; and d. Add paragraph (f).

The revision and addition read as follows:

§ 1412.41 ARC or PLC program contract.

(a) * * *

(2) For program year 2018, the enrollment period will end on September 30, 2018.

(i) Eligible producers must execute and submit an ARC or PLC program contract not later than September 30, 2018, for fiscal year 2018 contracts.

(ii) Except as stated in this section, enrollment is not allowed after September 30 of the fiscal year in which the ARC or PLC payments are requested. FSA will not process offers of enrollment for a contract period after the contract period has ended. This is not a compliance provision but a rule of general applicability and will apply to every offer to contract in each contract year.

(f) Any 2018 contract for a farm that includes generic base acres, whether or not that contract was approved on behalf of CCC, is invalid and withdrawn. Eligible producers on farms that had generic base acres must enroll in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section after allocation has been completed. Any contract executed before allocation in § 1412.25 will not be recognized by CCC for any purpose.

§ § 1412.44 and 1412.45 [Removed and Reserved]
14. Remove and reserve §§ 1412.44 and 1412.45.
§ 1412.46 [Amended]
15. In § 1412.46 (f), remove the last sentence. Subpart E—Financial Considerations Including Sharing Payments
§ 1412.51 [Amended]
16. Amend § 1412.51 as follows: a. Remove paragraph (b); b. Redesignate paragraphs (c) through (e) as (b) through (d), and; c. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), remove the words “including any generic base acres”.
§ 1412.52 [Amended]
17. In § 1412.52(a), remove the words “each of the 2014 through” and add the word “the” in their place. 18. Amend § 1412.53 as follows: a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, remove “each of the 2014 through” and add “the” in their place; b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove “each of the 2014 through” and add “the” in their place; and c. Revise paragraph (e).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1412.53 ARC payment provisions.

(e) FSA has determined the irrigated and non-irrigated counties and crops for the 2018 program year.

§ 1412.54 [Amended]
19. Amend § 1412.54 as follows; a. In paragraph (a), remove the words “apply for CTAP as specified in subpart H of this part and annually”; b. In paragraph (b), remove the words “applies for CTAP or elects and”; c. In paragraph (c), remove the words “CTAP payment or”; d. In paragraph (d)(4), remove the words “ARC, PLC, or CTAP” and add the words “ARC or PLC” in their place both times they appear; e. In paragraph (f) introductory text, remove the first sentence; f. In paragraph (f)(2), remove the words “of this part”; and f. In paragraph (h), remove the words “a CTAP application or” and add the word “an” in their place, and remove the words and punctuation “CTAP application, or” in both places.
§ 1412.55 [Amended]
20. In § 1412.55(a)(1), remove the words and punctuations “ARC, PLC, or CTAP”, and add “ARC or PLC” in their place. Subpart F—Violations and Compliance Provisions
§ 1412.61 [Amended]
21. In § 1412.61, remove “or CTAP application, as applicable” and remove “or CTAP application”.
§ 1412.63 [Amended]
22. In § 1412.63, remove the words “or CTAP application”.
§ 1412.64 [Amended]
23. Amend § 1412.64 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove “ARC, PLC, and CTAP” and add “ARC or PLC” in its place, and remove the words “or application”; b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, remove “ARC, PLC, or CTAP” and add “ARC or PLC” in its place; and c. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the words and punctuation “, CTAP application,”.
§ 1412.66 [Amended]
24. In § 1412.66(a), remove “ARC, PLC, and CTAP” and add “ARC or PLC” in their place.
§ 1412.69 [Amended]
25. In § 1412.69, remove “CTAP participants and enrolled” and add “Enrolled” in its place. Subpart G—ARC and PLC Election 26. Amend § 1412.71 as follows: a. Remove paragraph (c); b. Redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (c); c. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), remove the first sentence, remove “The” and add “In general, a” in its place; and d. Add new paragraph (d).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 1412.71 Election of ARC or PLC.

(d) Beginning with the 2018 crop year, a valid election for seed cotton is required for all current producers on a farm where seed cotton is added as a covered commodity, as specified in § 1412.25, unless the farm contains a valid ARC-IC election. A valid ARC-IC election on a farm is for all covered commodities and will include the added covered commodity of seed cotton. This election is for seed cotton only. All other covered commodities on a farm with seed cotton base acres have an election on file and will be bound by that prior election. The election by all current producers is to obtain:

(1) PLC for seed cotton base acres, or

(2) ARC-CO for seed cotton base acres.

27. In § 1412.74, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1412.74 Failure to make election.

(c) If a valid election is not made for seed cotton base acres on a farm, the producers of seed cotton base acres on the farm are deemed to have elected PLC for acres allocated on the farm to seed cotton for the 2018 crop year.

Steven Peterson, Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency. Robert Stephenson, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2018-17681 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 226 Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) CFR Correction In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 220 to 229, revised as of January 1, 2018, on page 414, in § 226.43, paragraph (1) after paragraph (b)(2) and before paragraph (b)(3) is removed. [FR Doc. 2018-17793 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 121 Small Business Size Regulations CFR Correction In Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2018, on page 393, in § 121.201, in the table “Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry”, the entry for NAICS code 336999 under Subsector 336 is completed by adding “All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing” under NAICS U.S. industry title and “1,000” under Size standards in number of employees. [FR Doc. 2018-17794 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0937; Product Identifier 2017-NE-32-AD; Amendment 39-19341; AD 2018-16-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH Attendant Seats and Pilot Seats AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH Attendant Seats NG and Pilot Seats 120/335. This AD requires removing and replacing the energy absorber (EA) assemblies on affected pilot seats and the removing and replacing affected attendant seats. This AD was prompted by the discovery that rivets with insufficient strength were used during the manufacture of EA assemblies installed on certain seats. We are issuing this AD 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 this AD as of August 31, 2018.

We must receive comments on this AD by October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this final rule, contact B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH, Müller-Armack-Str. 4, D-84034 Landshut, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 871 93248-0; fax: +49 (0) 871 93248-22; email: [email protected] You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0937.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0937; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0210, dated October 24, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

It was discovered that rivets with insufficient strength were used during the manufacturing of energy absorber (EA) assemblies, installed on certain seats. As a consequence, these EA assemblies may not be fully functional during an emergency landing.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to injury of the seat occupant.

To address this unsafe condition, B/E Aerospace Fisher issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB 9911-001 to provide replacement instructions.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires replacement of the EA assemblies on the affected seats.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0937.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed B/E Aerospace Fischer Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016. The ASB describes procedures for removing and replacing the EA assemblies on affected pilot seats and the removing and replacing affected attendant seats. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

This AD requires removing and replacing the EA assemblies on affected pilot seats and removing and replacing the affected attendant seats.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

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

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2017-0937 and Product Identifier 2017-NE-32-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 0 pilot seats and 0 attendant seats installed on aircraft of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect to determine if re-work has been accomplished 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $0 Replace EA assembly 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 20,000 20,170 0 Remove and replace attendant seat 2 work-hour × $85 per hour = $170 10,000 10,170 0
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2018-16-01 B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH: Amendment 39-19341; Docket No. FAA-2017-0937; Product Identifier 2017-NE-32-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 31, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to attendant seats NG and pilot seats 120/335 with part numbers (P/Ns) and serial numbers (S/Ns) listed in Figures 1 and 2 to paragraph (c) of this AD. These seats are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Leonardo S.p.a. (formerly Finmeccanica, AgustaWestland, and Agusta) A109 and AW169 rotorcraft.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD—P/N and S/Ns of Attendant Seat NG P/N S/N 1021-A-B-10221-0WX01 0232 ,0237, 0252, 0253, 0254, 0255, 0263, 0284, 0285, 0286, 0287, 0288, 0290, 0291, 0307, 0308, 0309, 0310, 0311, 0312, 0313, 0314. Figure 2 to Paragraph (c) of This AD—P/Ns and S/Ns of Pilot Seat 120/335 P/N S/N 9911-0-0-X05X11101L2 1524, 1525, 1531, 1534. 9911-0-0-X05X11101R2 1529, 1530. 9911-0-0-X05X111L1R2 1542, 1543. 9911-0-0-X05X111R1L2 1541. (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2510, Flight Compartment Equipment.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery that rivets with insufficient strength were used during the manufacture of energy absorber (EA) assemblies installed on certain Attendant Seats NG and Pilot Seats 120/335. We are issuing this AD to prevent malfunction of the EA on the seat. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in injuries to the occupants during an emergency landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD:

    (1) Review each affected attendant seat NG and pilot seat 120/335 to determine if rework has already been performed in accordance with the instructions in the Actions paragraph in B/E Aerospace Fischer Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016. If rework has been performed, no further action is required.

    (2) Remove and replace the EA assemblies on each affected pilot seat in accordance with the instructions in the Actions paragraph in B/E Aerospace Fischer ASB No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016.

    (3) Remove each affected attendant seat and replace with a reworked seat in accordance with the instructions in the Actions paragraph B/E Aerospace Fischer ASB No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016.

    (h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an affected seat on an aircraft unless, prior to installation, the EA assemblies on the seat have been replaced in accordance with B/E Aerospace Fischer ASB No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD if you performed these actions using B/E Aerospace Fischer ASB No. SB 9911-001, Issue A, dated July 14, 2016.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston 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.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-238-7693; fax: 781- 238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2016-0210, dated October 24, 2016, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0937.

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) B/E Aerospace Fischer Alert Service Bulletin No. SB 9911-001, Issue B, dated November 4, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH, Müller-Armack-Str. 4, D-84034 Landshut, Germany; phone: +49 (0) 871 93248-0; fax:+49 (0) 871 93248-22; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7759.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 9, 2018. Robert J. Ganley, Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17648 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0632; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWA-4] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of Chicago Class B and Chicago Class C Airspace; Chicago, IL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule, technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area description by changing references for defining the center point of the Chicago Class B airspace from the Chicago O'Hare VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) to “Point of Origin.” The “Point of Origin” uses the same geographic coordinates as the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME location. This action also amends the Chicago Midway Airport, IL, Class C airspace description by changing the reference for defining a portion of the Class C airspace boundary from using the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to using the geographic coordinates of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME instead. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME. Additionally, the Chicago Class B and Chicago Midway Airport Class C airspace descriptions are edited further to reflect the Chicago Midway International Airport name change to match the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database, and the Chicago Midway Airport Class C airspace designation is amended to remove the airport name from the airspace designation to comply with FAA regulatory guidance. These changes are editorial only and do not alter the current charted boundaries, altitudes, or ATC procedures for the Chicago Class B or the Chicago Midway International Airport Class C airspace areas.

    DATES:

    Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 11, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 the 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 makes editorial corrections to existing Class B and Class C airspace descriptions to maintain accuracy.

    History

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME in January 2019 in support of construction activities for creating a new runway at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. To ensure there will be no change to the existing charted boundaries of the Chicago Class B or Chicago Midway Airport Class C airspace areas, the FAA is retaining the geographic coordinates of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME location as the center point for the Class B airspace and also using them to define a portion of the boundary of the Chicago Midway Airport Class C airspace.

    Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 and Class C airspace designations are published in paragraph 4000 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 B and Class C airspace designations listed in this document will be subsequently published 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

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by editing the description of the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace and Chicago Midway Airport, IL, Class C airspace areas to remove references to the “Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME” and update the Chicago Midway International Airport name.

    In the Chicago Class B airspace description, the Chicago VOR/DME is replaced with “Point of Origin” for defining the center point of the Class B airspace area.

    In the Chicago Midway International Airport Class C airspace description, the arc around the Chicago VOR/DME is replaced by a radius around a point at the geographic coordinates of the Chicago VOR/DME for defining a portion of the Class C airspace boundary.

    The FAA is taking these actions so the currently charted boundaries of the Class B and Class C airspace areas are not affected by the planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME.

    The Chicago Class B and Chicago Class C airspace descriptions are also updated by changing the airport name Chicago Midway Airport to Chicago Midway International Airport, to be in concert with the data currently contained in the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Additionally, this action removes the airport name from the Chicago, IL, Class C airspace designation to comply with the FAA's regulatory guidance.

    Because this action is a minor editorial change that does not alter the currently charted boundaries, altitudes, or ATC procedures for the Chicago, IL, Class B and the Chicago Midway International Airport, IL, Class C airspace, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.

    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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 of amending the airspace descriptions of the Chicago, IL, Class B and Chicago Midway International Airport, IL, Class C airspace areas, by changing the references to the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to “Point of Origin” in the Chicago Class B description and to using the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME geographic coordinates in the Chicago Midway Airport Class C description, due to the planned decommissioning of the Chicago, IL, VOR/DME, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321; its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500; and its agency-specific implementing regulations in FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” regarding categorical exclusions for procedural actions at paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from full environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points. This airspace action is an editorial change only and is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    List 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 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, signed August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows: Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B Airspace. AGL IL B Chicago, IL Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Primary Airport) (Lat. 41°58′38″ N, long. 87°54′29″ W) Chicago Midway International Airport (Lat. 41°47′10″ N, long. 87°45′09″ W) Point of Origin (Lat. 41°59′16″ N, long. 87°54′17″ W) Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 42°04′11″ N, long. 87°55′31″ W; thence clockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin to lat. 41°59′15″ N, long. 87°47′35″ W; thence east to lat. 41°59′15″ N, long. 87°46′15″ W; thence clockwise along the 6 NM radius of the Point of Origin to Interstate Highway 355 (I-355) (41°57′16″ N, 88°01′52″ W); thence north along I-355 to Interstate Highway 290 (I-290) (lat. 41°57′12″ N, long. 88°01′56″ W); thence north along I-290 to the 6 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°01′17″ N, long. 88°01′52″ W); thence clockwise along the 6 NM radius of the Point of Origin to U.S. Highway 12 (lat. 42°05′03″ N, long. 87°56′26″ W); thence southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the point of beginning.

    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin and the railroad tracks at lat. 42°03′57″ N, long. 87°51′55″ W; thence northeast along the railroad tracks to Willow Road (lat. 42°06′20″ N, long. 87°49′38″ W); thence east along Willow Road to the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°06′04″ N, long. 87°44′26″ W); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the 5 NM radius of Chicago Midway International Airport (lat. 41°49′34″ N, long. 87°51′00″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Chicago Midway International Airport to the 10.5 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°48′59″ N, long. 87°51′22″ W); thence clockwise along the 10.5 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the 10 NM radius of the Chicago Midway International Airport (lat. 41°49′11″ N, long. 87°58′14″ W); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of Chicago Midway International Airport to the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°49′40″ N, long. 87°58′05″ W); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin to U.S. Highway 12 (lat. 42°08′01″ N, long. 88°00′46″ W); thence southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°04′10″ N, long. 87°55′31″ W); thence clockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace designated as Area A.

    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by the 15 NM radius of the Point of Origin, excluding that airspace designated as Area A, Area B, Area G, and Area H.

    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 42°07′52″ N, long. 88°10′47″ W; thence northwest to the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°15′40″ N, long. 88°19′39″ W); thence clockwise along the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin to lat. 41°42′03″ N, long. 88°18′34″ W; thence northeast to the 15 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°49′53″ N, long. 88°09′59″ W); thence clockwise along the 15 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace designated as Area A, Area B, Area C, Area G, and Area H.

    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 42°11′11″ N, long. 87°24′46″ W; thence east to the 30 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°10′39″ N, long. 87°17′01″ W); thence clockwise along the 30 NM radius of the Point of Origin to lat. 41°46′38″ N, long. 87°17′51″ W; thence west to the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°46′40″ N, long. 87°25′22″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the point of beginning.

    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 42°07′52″ N, long. 88°10′47″ W; thence northwest to the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°15′40″ N, long. 88°19′39″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin to Interstate 90 (lat. 42°07′22″ N, long. 88°26′01″ W); thence west to the 30 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°07′21″ N, long. 88°33′05″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM radius of the Point of Origin to County Road 10 (lat. 41°49′49″ N, long. 88°32′27″ W); thence east along County Road 10 to the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°50′40″ N, long. 88°25′44″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 25 NM radius of the Point of Origin to lat. 41°42′03″ N, long. 88°18′34″ W; thence northeast to the 15 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 41°49′53″ N, long. 88°09′59″ W); thence clockwise along the 15 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the point of beginning.

    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 42°04′15″ N, long. 87°54′56″ W; thence northwest to the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°09′00″ N, long. 87°57′22″ W); thence counterclockwise along the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin to U.S. Highway 12 (lat. 42°08′01″ N, long. 88°00′46″ W); thence southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°04′11″ N, long. 87°55′31″ W); thence clockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Point of Origin to the point of beginning.

    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of Willow Road and railroad tracks at lat. 42°06′20″ N, long. 87°49′38″ W; thence northeast along the railroad tracks to the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin (lat. 42°08′06″ N, long. 87°48′00″ W); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of the Point of Origin to Willow Road (lat. 42°06′04″ N, long. 87°44′26″ W); thence west along Willow Road to the point of beginning.

    Paragraph 4000 Subpart C—Class C Airspace. AGL IL C Chicago, IL Chicago Midway International Airport, IL (Lat. 41°47′10″ N, long. 87°45′09″ W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to 3,600 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Chicago Midway International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to 3,600 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport beginning from a line 2-miles northeast of and parallel to the Chicago Midway International Airport Runway 31C localizer course, thence clockwise along the 10-mile radius of the airport to the intersection with the 10.5-mile radius around a point centered at lat. 41°59′16″ N, long. 87°54′17″ W, thence counterclockwise along that 10.5-mile radius to the intersection with the Chicago Midway International Airport 5-mile radius. This Class C airspace area excludes the airspace within the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2018. Rodger A. Dean, Jr., Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17596 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 23 Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; adoption of revised guides.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) adopts revised Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries (“Jewelry Guides” or “Guides”). This document summarizes the Commission's revisions to the previous Guides and includes the final Guides as revised. Readers can find the Commission's complete analysis in the Statement of Basis and Purpose (“SBP”) on the FTC's website at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2018/07/statement-basis-purpose-final-revisions-jewelry-guides.

    DATES:

    Effective on August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reenah L. Kim, Attorney, (202) 326-2272, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its comprehensive review of the Jewelry Guides, the Commission reviewed public comments and the transcript of a public roundtable. The Commission developed its final guidance in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), which prohibits deceptive or unfair acts or practices.1 The Guides focus on advising marketers how to make non-deceptive claims about jewelry products, rather than preventing unfair practices.2 Under Section 5, an act or practice is deceptive if it involves a material statement or omission that would mislead a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.3

    1 15 U.S.C. 45.

    2 Although the Guides focus on deception, the FTC can also address unfair practices should the need arise.

    3 FTC Policy Statement on Deception, appended to Cliffdale Assoc., Inc., 103 FTC 110 (1984); see also FTC v. Verity Int'l, 443 F.3d 48, 63 (2d Cir. 2006); FTC v. Pantron I Corp., 33 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Section 5, an act or practice is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury that consumers could not reasonably avoid, and the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. 15 U.S.C. 45(n).

    As administrative interpretations of Section 5, the Commission's Jewelry Guides are not intended to be stricter than Section 5. Rather, they provide the Commission's interpretation of Section 5 as applied to jewelry marketing, to help marketers avoid deceptive practices. To comply with Section 5, marketers must consider how reasonable consumers will view their claims as a whole, assessing the net impression conveyed by all elements (including the text, product names, and depictions).4

    4See generally Deception Policy Statement, appended to Cliffdale Assoc., Inc., 103 FTC at 179 (1984).

    When the Commission issues or revises an industry guide, it is providing an administrative interpretation of laws it administers, including Section 5's prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The Commission provides its administrative interpretation based on information submitted and any other information available, including consumer perception evidence whenever possible, analyzing the information through the reasonable person standard first set forth in the Deception Policy Statement in 1983, and the unfairness standard, first set forth in the Unfairness Policy Statement announced in 1984 and codified in Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. Applying the reasonable consumer standard supported by consumer perception evidence as the Commission revises the Jewelry Guides (which originally predated the two policy statements) enhances the protection of consumers from the harm of false or misleading claims in jewelry marketing and fosters truthful, non-misleading claims in jewelry marketing that are beneficial to consumers and competition. Based on this framework, the Commission now makes several modifications and additions to the previous Guides and adopts the resulting revised Guides as final. Specifically, the Commission revises the following areas: (I) Surface application of precious metals; (II) alloys with precious metals in amounts below minimum thresholds; (III) products containing more than one precious metal; (IV) composite gemstone products; (V) varietals; (VI) “cultured” diamonds; (VII) qualifying claims about man-made gemstones; (VIII) pearl treatment disclosures; (IX) use of the term “gem”; (X) misleading illustrations; (XI) diamond definition; and (XII) exemptions recognized in the assay for gold, silver, and platinum. Finally, the Commission does not expand the existing Guides to address certain products and claims as requested by commenters.

    Surface Application of Precious Metals

    The final Guides include several revisions addressing precious metal surface applications. First, based on the comments, the Guides now caution marketers against using silver or platinum terms to describe all or part of a coated product unless they adequately qualify the term to indicate the product has only a surface layer of the advertised precious metal.5 The Guides retain similar guidance advising marketers not to use gold terms to describe coated products or parts unless the term is qualified to convey that the gold is only on the surface.6

    5 Sections 23.5(b)(4) (silver) and 23.6(b)(1) (platinum).

    6 Section 23.3(b)(3).

    Second, for sellers choosing to advertise their products' precious metal coatings, the final Guides advise how to do so non-deceptively. Specifically, they advise marketers advertising their product's gold, silver, or platinum coating to assure its reasonable durability. In this context, “reasonable durability” means “all areas of the plating are sufficiently thick to assure coverage that reasonable consumers would expect from the surface application.” 7

    7 Sections 23.3(b)(4), (5), (6), and (8), (c)(2) and (3) (gold); 23.5(b)(5) (silver); and 23.6(b)(2) (platinum).

    Third, based on new durability testing, the final Guides include revised examples of non-deceptive markings and descriptions for gold surface applications that are reasonably durable.8 For electrolytic applications, the Guides retain the same thickness and karat fineness amounts as the previous Guides, but no longer advise marketers they may non-deceptively use “gold flashed” and “gold washed” for products with an electroplating that does not have a minimum thickness throughout equivalent to 0.175 microns (approximately 7/1,000,000ths of an inch) of fine gold. For mechanical applications, the Guides now advise a 1/40th minimum weight ratio for non-deceptive use of the terms “gold plate(d),” 9 “gold overlay,” “rolled gold plate.” 10 In addition, the Guides retain existing guidance advising a 1/20th weight ratio for “gold filled” products, and the guidance advising marketers to disclose weight ratio when using “gold overlay” or “rolled gold plate” for products below 1/20th.11

    8 These examples are also referred to as “safe harbor” guidance.

    9 As proposed, the final Guides eliminate the safe harbor provision for “gold plate(d)” coatings applied by any method and transfer this term to guidance that separately addresses electrolytic and mechanical applications.

    10 Section 23.3(c)(2). As explained in the SBP, the Guides advise a minimum weight ratio, rather than the previously proposed coating thickness, based on new evidence indicating that 1/40th provides the durability consumers expect.

    11 Section 23.3(c)(2). As proposed, the final Guides eliminate a note concerning outdated terms (e.g., “Duragold,” “Diragold”) which commenters agreed are no longer used. However, they do not set standards for new coating terms (e.g., “clad,” “bonded”) or other precious metal coatings such as silver or platinum.

    Fourth, the final Guides advise marketers to disclose the purity of coatings made with a gold, silver, or platinum alloy. The Guides already caution marketers against unqualified use of “gold,” “silver,” or “platinum” to describe alloys containing less than 24K gold, 925 PPT silver, or 950 PPT platinum. To clarify that this guidance applies equally to products coated with a gold, silver, or platinum alloy, the Commission amends the guidance to advise that marketers qualify their use of gold, silver, or platinum terms to describe “all or part” of a product, “including the surface layer of a coated product,” with equally conspicuous, accurate purity disclosures.12

    12 Sections 23.3(b)(1) and (2) (gold); 23.5(b)(1) (silver); and 23.6(b)(3) (platinum). In addition, based on the comments, the Guides now include karat fineness disclosures in the description and marking examples for gold electrolytic applications, consistent with the examples for mechanical applications. Section 23.3(b)(5), (6), and (8); 23.3(c)(2) and (3).

    Finally, the final Guides advise marketers to disclose rhodium coatings over products advertised as precious metal, such as rhodium-plated items marketed as “white gold” or silver.13

    13 Rhodium is a platinum group metal often used to enhance the white color of silver and white gold jewelry. Section 23.7.

    Below-Threshold Precious Metal Alloys

    The previous Guides cautioned marketers against using the words “gold,” “silver,” “platinum,” or their abbreviations to describe or mark a product unless it contained the precious metal in an amount that met or exceeded specified thresholds. The final Guides remove the thresholds for gold and silver alloys because new evidence indicates they are no longer necessary to prevent deception. Specifically, the final Guides now advise marketers they may use gold terms to describe a product or part thereof composed throughout of gold alloy—whether above or below 10 karats—if they qualify the term with an equally conspicuous, accurate karat fineness disclosure.14 The final Guides also advise marketers they may use “silver” to describe a product or part thereof composed throughout of an alloy containing less than 925 parts per thousand (PPT), as long as an equally conspicuous, accurate PPT designation immediately precedes the silver term.15 These changes will give marketers greater flexibility in providing accurate information about their products' content.

    14 Section 23.3(b)(2).

    15 Section 23.5(b)(1).

    However, the final Guides retain the guidance advising a 925 PPT threshold for “solid silver,” “Sterling Silver,” “Sterling,” and the “Ster.” Abbreviation,16 and reserving “coin” and “coin silver” for products that are 900 PPT,17 based on their longstanding use and therefore probable consumer understanding. Rather than merely signaling the presence of silver, these terms likely denote specific purity levels (e.g., that “coin silver” contains less silver than “sterling silver”). In addition, the Guides retain the existing platinum alloy guidance without change because the record indicates that, unlike gold and silver, which have traditionally been mixed with base metals to create jewelry, consumers expect platinum products to be substantially composed of pure platinum.

    16 Section 23.5(b)(2).

    17 Section 23.5(b)(3).

    Products Containing More Than One Precious Metal

    Based on consumer perception evidence, the final Guides contain a new section (Section 23.8), which states it is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the relative quantity of each precious metal in a product that contains more than one precious metal, and provides examples of markings and descriptions of terms that may be misleading (e.g., use of the term “Platinum + Silver” to describe a product that contains more silver than platinum by weight). This guidance generally advises marketers to list precious metals in the order of their relative weight in the product from greatest to least. Marketers, however, may list metals in a different order if the context makes clear that the metal listed first is not predominant (e.g., “14k gold-accented silver”), and the Guides provide illustrative examples of such contexts.

    Composite Gemstone Products

    Based on the record, the final Guides contain new guidance in Section 23.25 to address increased prevalence of deceptive claims resulting from the marketing of composite gemstone products made with gemstone material and any amount of filler or binder, such as lead glass. Specifically, this guidance cautions marketers not to use an unqualified gemstone name to describe these products, and advises against calling them “treated [gemstone name].” It also cautions against using the unqualified terms “composite [gemstone name],” “hybrid [gemstone name],” or “manufactured [gemstone name]” unless the term is qualified to disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product: (a) Does not have the same characteristics as the named stone; and (b) requires special care. The final Guides further recommend that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser.18

    18 Section 23.25(d).

    Varietals

    Based on consumer perception evidence, Section 23.26 contains new guidance stating it is unfair or deceptive to mark or describe a product with an incorrect varietal name. Varietal names describe a division of gem species or genus based on color, type of optical phenomenon, or other distinguishing characteristic of appearance (e.g., crystal structure). To help sellers avoid making deceptive claims, this section also provides two examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading: (a) Use of the term “yellow emerald” to describe a golden beryl or heliodor, and (b) use of the term “green amethyst” to describe prasiolite.

    “Cultured” Diamonds

    The final Guides include new guidance addressing use of the word “cultured” to describe laboratory-created diamonds. Based on consumer perception evidence showing marketers can effectively qualify the term, Section 23.12(c)(3) advises them to qualify their use of “cultured” by disclosing clearly and conspicuously that the product is not a mined stone. Additionally, the record indicates that marketers can effectively qualify the term “cultured diamond” in some circumstances even when the Guides' suggested disclosures (“laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer-name]-created”) do not appear in immediate conjunction to the term. For example, some lab-created diamond sellers may choose to emphasize their products' man-made nature in advertisements targeting consumers seeking diamonds that are not traditionally mined. Therefore, to provide greater flexibility, the final Guides advise that marketers may qualify their “cultured diamond” claim with words or phrases similar to those detailed in the Guides. Moreover, these marketers do not need to make these qualifying disclosures immediately adjacent to the word “cultured,” provided they disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product is not a mined stone.

    Qualifying Claims About Man-Made Gemstones

    To provide marketers greater flexibility, the final Guides also include revisions to the guidance regarding the use of gemstone names generally (Section 23.25(b)). This amended guidance now advises marketers of man-made gemstones sharing the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the named stone that they may use words or phrases other than the ones listed in the previous Guides (“laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic”) if they clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone.

    Treatments to Pearl Products

    Based on the comments, the final Guides include a new section (Section 23.23) advising that marketers disclose clearly and conspicuously treatments to pearls and cultured pearls that: (a) Are not permanent, (b) create special care requirements, or (c) significantly affect value.19

    19 This new section tracks the existing guidance regarding gemstone treatments.

    Use of the Term “Gem”

    The final Guides eliminate two provisions that discussed use of the word “gem” because they are not necessary to prevent deception. Specifically, the final Guides do not include the former Section 23.25 (Misuse of the word “gem”) and Section 23.20(j) (misuse of the word “gem” as to pearls). Instead, they include the term “gem” in Section 23.25 (Misuse of the words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz, “stone,” “birthstone,” “gemstone,” etc.).

    Misleading Illustrations

    To streamline the guidance, the final Guides also eliminate a section that discussed misleading illustrations (former Section 23.2) because it provided guidance already addressed in other areas: Section 23.1 (Deception (general)) and Section 23.0 (Scope and application). To preserve its specific guidance regarding diamond illustrations and gemstone size, however, the former Note to Section 23.2 has been transferred to Section 23.1.

    Diamond Definition

    Based on changes in the market, the final Guides eliminate the word “natural” from the definition of diamond in Section 23.12(a) because lab-created products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds are also diamonds.20

    20 The distinctions between these lab-created diamonds and mined stones are addressed elsewhere in the Guides. See Sections 23.12(c)(3) and 23.25.

    Exemptions in the Assay for Gold, Silver, and Platinum

    Based on the comments, the final Guides add bracelet and necklace snap tongues to the exempted items listed in the Appendix for gold alloy products and for products made of silver in combination with gold. These items are already included in the exemptions for mechanically-coated gold products, silver products, and platinum products. Thus, with this revision, bracelet and necklace snap tongues appear in each section addressing assay exemptions.21

    21 Furthermore, the Commission removes an outdated provision in paragraph (e) of the Appendix regarding platinum. The provision listed additional exemptions for items marked in accordance with guidance that once addressed products containing less than 500 PPT platinum. Because the Commission eliminated this guidance in a prior proceeding, the corresponding list of assay exemptions is no longer necessary. See 62 FR 16669, 16674 (Apr. 8, 1997). The final Appendix therefore retains the exemptions for platinum products, but does not include additional exemptions for products with less than 500 PPT.

    Products and Claims Not Addressed

    The final Guides do not make some revisions that commenters sought. Specifically, the final Guides do not expand the existing guidance to address products made with palladium, use of the term “natural” to describe treated gemstones, or the use of geographic and regional identifiers because the evidence does not demonstrate that amendments are necessary to prevent deception. For the same reason, the Commission declines to make revisions addressing diamond-related issues such as use of the terms “blue white,” “ethical” and “conflict free,” as well as grading and appraisals. Furthermore, the final Guides do not expand the guidance regarding “handmade” and similar terms specifically to include or exclude hand-cast items because the Commission lacks sufficient evidence on which to base new guidance.22 For the same reason, the Guides do not address whether marketers may non-deceptively describe “large-scale” and “mass” or “industrially” produced jewelry as “handmade.” 23

    22 The Commission does, however, add precious metal clays, ingots, and casting grain to the “raw materials” listed in the Note to this section (Section 23.2).

    23 Additionally, the Commission declines to make changes regarding the use of parts per thousand, instead of karats, for gold content disclosures.

    Conclusion

    For further analysis of comments and the final guidance, please see the SBP on the FTC's website, available at https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2018/07/statement-basis-purpose-final-revisions-jewelry-guides.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 23

    Advertising, Jewelry, Labeling, Pewter, Precious metals, and Trade practices.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission revises 16 CFR part 23 to read as follows: PART 23—GUIDES FOR THE JEWELRY, PRECIOUS METALS, AND PEWTER INDUSTRIES Sec. 23.0 Scope and application. 23.1 Deception (general). 23.2 Misuse of the terms “handmade,” “hand-polished,” etc. 23.3 Misrepresentation as to gold content. 23.4 Misuse of the word “vermeil.” 23.5 Misrepresentation as to silver content. 23.6 Misuse of the words “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” and “osmium.” 23.7 Disclosure of surface-layer application of rhodium. 23.8 Misrepresentation as to products containing more than one precious metal. 23.9 Misrepresentation as to content of pewter. 23.10 Additional guidance for the use of quality marks. 23.11 Misuse of “corrosion proof,” “non-corrosive,” “corrosion resistant,” “rust proof,” “rust resistant,” etc. 23.12 Definition and misuse of the word “diamond.” 23.13 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc. 23.14 Disclosure of treatments to diamonds. 23.15 Misuse of the term “blue white.” 23.16 Misuse of the term “properly cut,” etc. 23.17 Misuse of the words “brilliant” and “full cut.” 23.18 Misrepresentation of weight and “total weight.” 23.19 Definitions of various pearls. 23.20 Misuse of the word “pearl.” 23.21 Misuse of terms such as “cultured pearl,” “seed pearl,” “Oriental pearl,” “natura,” “kultured,” “real,” “gem,” “synthetic,” and regional designations. 23.22 Misrepresentation as to cultured pearls. 23.23 Disclosure of treatments to pearls and cultured pearls. 23.24 Disclosure of treatments to gemstones. 23.25 Misuse of the words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” “stone,” “birthstone,” “gemstone,” etc. 23.26 Misrepresentation as to varietal name. 23.27 Misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” etc. 23.28 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc. Appendix to Part 23—Exemptions Recognized in the Assay for Quality of Gold Alloy, Gold Filled, Gold Overlay, Rolled Gold Plate, Silver, and Platinum Industry Products Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 45, 46.

    § 23.0 Scope and application.

    (a) The guides in this part apply to jewelry industry products, which include, but are not limited to, the following: Gemstones and their laboratory-created and imitation substitutes; natural and cultured pearls and their imitations; and metallic watch bands not permanently attached to watches. These guides also apply to articles, including optical frames, pens and pencils, flatware, and hollowware, fabricated from precious metals (gold, silver, and platinum group metals), precious metal alloys, and their imitations. These guides also apply to all articles made from pewter. For the purposes of these guides, all articles covered by these guides are defined as “industry products.”

    (b) These guides apply to persons, partnerships, or corporations, at every level of the trade (including but not limited to manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers) engaged in the business of offering for sale, selling, or distributing industry products.

    Note to Paragraph (b):

    To prevent consumer deception, persons, partnerships, or corporations in the business of appraising, identifying, or grading industry products should utilize the terminology and standards set forth in the guides.

    (c) These guides apply to claims and representations about industry products included in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, emblems, logos, illustrations, depictions, product brand names, or through any other means.

    (d) These guides set forth the Federal Trade Commission's current thinking about claims for jewelry and articles made from precious metals and pewter. The guides help marketers and other industry members avoid making claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights on any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public. The Commission, however, may take action under the FTC Act if a marketer or other industry member makes a claim inconsistent with the guides. In any such enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the challenged act or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

    (e) The guides consist of general principles, specific guidance on the use of particular claims for industry products, and examples. Claims may raise issues that are addressed by more than one example and in more than one section of the guides. The examples provide the Commission's views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain claims. Industry members may use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Whether a particular claim is deceptive will depend on the net impression of the advertisement, label, or other promotional material at issue. In addition, although many examples present specific claims and options for qualifying claims, the examples do not illustrate all permissible claims or qualifications under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

    § 23.1 Deception (general).

    It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the type, kind, grade, quality, quantity, metallic content, size, weight, cut, color, character, treatment, substance, durability, serviceability, origin, price, value, preparation, production, manufacture, distribution, or any other material aspect of an industry product.

    Note 1 to § 23.1:

    If, in the sale or offering for sale of an industry product, any representation is made as to the grade assigned the product, the identity of the grading system used should be disclosed.

    Note 2 to § 23.1:

    To prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures, such as those described in the guides, should be sufficiently clear and prominent. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.

    Note 3 to § 23.1:

    An illustration or depiction of a diamond or other gemstone that portrays it in greater than its actual size may mislead consumers, unless a disclosure is made about the item's true size.

    § 23.2 Misuse of the terms “handmade,” “hand-polished,” etc.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is handmade or hand-wrought unless the entire shaping and forming of such product from raw materials and its finishing and decoration were accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the construction, shape, design, and finish of each part of each individual product.

    Note to Paragraph (a):

    As used herein, “raw materials” include bulk sheet, strip, wire, precious metal clays, ingots, casting grain, and similar items that have not been cut, shaped, or formed into jewelry parts, semi-finished parts, or blanks.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is hand-forged, hand-engraved, hand-finished, or hand-polished, or has been otherwise hand-processed, unless the operation described was accomplished by hand labor and manually-controlled methods which permit the maker to control and vary the type, amount, and effect of such operation on each part of each individual product.

    § 23.3 Misrepresentation as to gold content.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the presence of gold or gold alloy in an industry product, or the quantity or karat fineness of gold or gold alloy contained in the product, or the karat fineness, thickness, weight ratio, or manner of application of any gold or gold alloy plating, covering, or coating on any surface of an industry product or part thereof.

    (b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading: 24

    24 See paragraph (c) of this section for examples of acceptable markings and descriptions.

    (1) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation, without qualification, to describe all or part of an industry product, including the surface layer of a coated product, which is not composed throughout of fine (24 karat) gold.

    (2) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product (including the surface layer of a coated product) composed throughout of an alloy of gold (i.e., gold that is less than 24 karats), unless a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy immediately precedes the word “Gold” or its abbreviation, and such fineness designation is of at least equal conspicuousness.

    (3) Use of the word “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of gold or a gold alloy, but is surface-plated or coated with gold alloy, unless the word “Gold” or its abbreviation is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only surface-plated.

    (4) Marking, describing, or otherwise representing all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with gold or gold alloy unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of gold or gold alloy that is of reasonable durability.25

    25 For the purpose of this section, “reasonable durability” means that all areas of the plating are sufficiently thick to assure coverage that reasonable consumers would expect from the surface application. Since industry products include items having surfaces and parts of surfaces that are subject to different degrees of wear, the thickness of the surface application for all items or for different areas of the surface of individual items does not necessarily have to be uniform.

    (5) Use of the term “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part contains a surface-plating of gold alloy, applied by any process, which is of such thickness and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability 26 is assured, and unless the term is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy that is of at least equal conspicuousness as the term used.

    26 See footnote 2.

    (6) Use of the terms “Gold Filled,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Rolled Gold Plated,” “Gold Overlay,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part contains a surface-plating of gold alloy applied by a mechanical process and of such thickness and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability 27 is assured, and unless the term is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy that is of at least equal conspicuousness as the term used.

    27 See footnote 2.

    (7) Use of the terms “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” “Gold Filled,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Rolled Gold Plated,” “Gold Overlay,” or any abbreviation to describe a product in which the layer of gold plating has been covered with a base metal (such as nickel), which is covered with a thin wash of gold, unless there is a disclosure that the primary gold coating is covered with a base metal, which is gold washed.

    (8) Use of the term “Gold Electroplate,” “Gold Electroplated,” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of an industry product unless such product or part is electroplated with gold or a gold alloy and such electroplating is of such karat fineness, thickness, and extent of surface coverage that reasonable durability 28 is assured, and unless the term is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy that is of at least equal conspicuousness as the term used.

    28 See footnote 2.

    (9) Use of any name, terminology, or other term to misrepresent that an industry product is equal or superior to, or different than, a known and established type of industry product with reference to its gold content or method of manufacture.

    (c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are consistent with the principles described above:

    (1) An industry product or part thereof, composed throughout of an alloy of gold may be marked and described as “Gold” when such word “Gold,” wherever appearing, is immediately preceded by a correct designation of the karat fineness of the alloy, and such karat designation is of equal conspicuousness as the word “Gold” (for example, “14 Karat Gold,” “14 K. Gold,” “14 Kt. Gold,” “9 Karat Gold,” or “9 Kt. Gold”). Such product may also be marked and described by a designation of the karat fineness of the gold alloy unaccompanied by the word “Gold” (for example, “14 Karat,” “14Kt.,” “14 K.,” or “9 K.”).

    Note to Paragraph (c)(1):

    Use of the term “Gold” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of a product that is composed throughout of gold alloy, but contains a hollow center or interior, may mislead consumers, unless the fact that the product contains a hollow center is disclosed in immediate proximity to the term “Gold” or its abbreviation (for example, “14 Karat Gold-Hollow Center,” or “14 K. Gold Tubing,” when of a gold alloy tubing of such karat fineness). Such products should not be marked or described as “solid” or as being solidly of gold or of a gold alloy. For example, when the composition of such a product is 14 karat gold alloy, it should not be described or marked as either “14 Kt. Solid Gold” or as “Solid 14 Kt. Gold.”

    (2) An industry product or part thereof on which there has been affixed on all significant surfaces by soldering, brazing, welding, or other mechanical means a plating of gold alloy of not less than 10 karat fineness and of reasonable durability 29 may be marked or described as “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” “Gold Overlay,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” “Rolled Gold Plated,” or an adequate abbreviation, when such plating constitutes at least 1/40th of the weight of the metal in the entire article and when the term is immediately preceded by a designation of the karat fineness of the plating which is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (for example, “14 Kt. Gold Overlay,” or “14K. R.G.P.”). When such plating constitutes at least 1/20th of the weight of the metal in the entire article, the term “Gold Filled” may be used. The terms “Gold Overlay,” “Rolled Gold Plate,” and “Rolled Gold Plated” may be used when the karat fineness designation is immediately preceded by a fraction accurately disclosing the portion of the weight of the metal in the entire article accounted for by the plating, and when such fraction is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (for example, “1/40th 12 Kt. Rolled Gold Plate” or “1/40 12 Kt. R.G.P.”).

    29 See footnote 2.

    (3) An industry product or part thereof on which there has been affixed on all significant surfaces by an electrolytic process an electroplating of gold, or of a gold alloy of not less than 10 karat fineness, which is of reasonable durability 30 and has a minimum thickness throughout equivalent to 0.175 microns (approximately 7/1,000,000ths of an inch) of fine gold,31 may be marked or described as “Gold Plate,” “Gold Plated,” “Gold Electroplate” or “Gold Electroplated,” or so abbreviated, if the term is immediately preceded by a designation of the karat fineness of the plating which is of equal conspicuousness as the term used (e.g., “12 Karat Gold Electroplate” or “12K G.E.P.”). When the electroplating is of the minimum fineness specified above and of a minimum thickness throughout equivalent to two and one half (21/2) microns (or approximately 100/1,000,000ths of an inch) of fine gold, the marking or description may be “Heavy Gold Electroplate” or “Heavy Gold Electroplated.” When electroplatings qualify for the term “Gold Electroplate” (or “Gold Electroplated”), or the term “Heavy Gold Electroplate” (or “Heavy Gold Electroplated”), and have been applied by use of a particular kind of electrolytic process, the marking may be accompanied by identification of the process used, as for example, “Gold Electroplated (X Process)” or “Heavy Gold Electroplated (Y Process).”

    30 See footnote 2.

    31 A product containing 1 micron (otherwise known as 1μ) of 12 karat gold is equivalent to one-half micron of 24-karat gold.

    (d) The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.32

    32 Under the National Stamping Act, articles or parts made of gold or of gold alloy that contain no solder have a permissible tolerance of three parts per thousand. If the part tested contains solder, the permissible tolerance is seven parts per thousand. For full text, see 15 U.S.C. 295, et seq.

    Note to Paragraph (d):

    Exemptions recognized in the assay of karat gold industry products and in the assay of gold filled, gold overlay, and rolled gold plate industry products, and not to be considered in any assay for quality, are listed in the appendix.

    § 23.4 Misuse of the word “vermeil.”

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that an industry product is “vermeil” if such mark or description misrepresents the product's true composition.

    (b) An industry product may be described or marked as “vermeil” if it consists of a base of sterling silver coated or plated on all significant surfaces with gold, or gold alloy of not less than 10 karat fineness, that is of reasonable durability 33 and a minimum thickness throughout equivalent to two and one half (21/2) microns (or approximately 100/1,000,000ths of an inch) of fine gold.

    33 See footnote 2.

    Note 1 to § 23.4:

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “vermeil” to describe a product in which the sterling silver has been covered with a base metal (such as nickel) plated with gold unless there is a disclosure that the sterling silver is covered with a base metal that is plated with gold.

    Note 2 to § 23.4:

    Exemptions recognized in the assay of gold filled, gold overlay, and rolled gold plate industry products are listed in the appendix.

    § 23.5 Misrepresentation as to silver content.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent that an industry product contains silver, or to misrepresent an industry product as having a silver content, plating, electroplating, or coating.

    (b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:

    (1) Use of the unqualified word “silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product, including the surface layer of a coated product, unless an equally conspicuous, accurate quality fineness designation indicating the pure silver content in parts per thousand immediately precedes the term (e.g., “750 silver”).

    (2) Use of the words “solid silver,” “Sterling Silver,” “Sterling,” or the abbreviation “Ster.” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver.

    (3) Use of the words “coin” or “coin silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver.

    (4) Use of the word “silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of silver, but has a surface layer or coating of silver, unless the term is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only coated.

    (5) Marking, describing, or otherwise representing all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with silver unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of silver that is of reasonable durability.34

    34 See footnote 2.

    (c) The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.35

    35 Under the National Stamping Act, sterling silver articles or parts that contain no solder have a permissible tolerance of four parts per thousand. If the part tested contains solder, the permissible tolerance is ten parts per thousand. For full text, see 15 U.S.C. 294, et seq.

    Note 1 to § 23.5:

    The National Stamping Act provides that silver plated articles shall not “be stamped, branded, engraved or imprinted with the word `sterling' or the word `coin,' either alone or in conjunction with other words or marks.” 15 U.S.C. 297(a).

    Note 2 to § 23.5:

    Exemptions recognized in the assay of silver industry products are listed in the appendix.

    § 23.6 Misuse of the words “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” and “osmium.”

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” and “osmium,” or any abbreviation to mark or describe all or part of an industry product if such marking or description misrepresents the product's true composition. The Platinum Group Metals (PGM) are Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Ruthenium, Rhodium, and Osmium.

    (b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading: 36

    36 See paragraph (c) of this section for examples of acceptable markings and descriptions.

    (1) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation to describe all or part of a product that is not composed throughout of platinum, but has a surface layer or coating of platinum, unless the word “Platinum” or its abbreviation is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only coated.

    (2) Marking, describing, or otherwise representing all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with platinum unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of platinum that is of reasonable durability.37

    37 See footnote 2.

    (3) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation, without qualification, to describe all or part of an industry product (including the surface layer of a coated product) that is not composed throughout of 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum.

    (4) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation accompanied by a number indicating the parts per thousand of pure Platinum contained in the product without mention of the number of parts per thousand of other PGM contained in the product, to describe all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of at least 850 parts per thousand pure platinum, for example, “600Plat.”

    (5) Use of the word “Platinum” or any abbreviation thereof, to mark or describe any product that is not composed throughout of at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum.

    (6) Use of the word “Platinum,” or any abbreviation accompanied by a number or percentage indicating the parts per thousand of pure Platinum contained in the product, to describe all or part of an industry product that contains at least 500 parts per thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and does not contain at least 950 parts per thousand PGM (for example, “585 Plat.”) without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, immediately following the name or description of such product:

    (i) Of the full composition of the product (by name and not abbreviation) and percentage of each metal; and

    (ii) That the product may not have the same attributes or properties as traditional platinum products. Provided, however, that the marketer need not make disclosure under this paragraph (b)(6)(ii), if the marketer has competent and reliable scientific evidence that such product does not differ materially from any one product containing at least 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum with respect to the following attributes or properties: Durability, luster, density, scratch resistance, tarnish resistance, hypoallergenicity, ability to be resized or repaired, retention of precious metal over time, and any other attribute or property material to consumers.

    Note to Paragraph (b)(6):

    When using percentages to qualify platinum representations, marketers should convert the amount in parts per thousand to a percentage that is accurate to the first decimal place (e.g., “58.5% Platinum, 41.5% Cobalt”).

    (c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:

    (1) The following abbreviations for each of the PGM may be used for quality marks on articles: “Plat.” or “Pt.” for Platinum; “Irid.” or “Ir.” for Iridium; “Pall.” or “Pd.” for Palladium; “Ruth.” or “Ru.” for Ruthenium; “Rhod.” or “Rh.” for Rhodium; and “Osmi.” or “Os.” for Osmium.

    (2) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked or described as “Platinum.”

    (3) An industry product consisting of 850 parts per thousand pure Platinum, 900 parts per thousand pure Platinum, or 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum may be marked “Platinum,” provided that the Platinum marking is preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of pure Platinum (for industry products consisting of 950 parts per thousand pure Platinum, the marking described in § 23.7(b)(2) above is also appropriate). Thus, the following markings may be used: “950Pt.,” “950Plat.,” “900Pt.,” “900Plat.,” “850Pt.,” or “850Plat.”

    (4) An industry product consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, and of at least 500 parts per thousand pure Platinum, may be marked “Platinum,” provided that the mark of each PGM constituent is preceded by a number indicating the amount in parts per thousand of each PGM (e.g., “600Pt.350Ir.,” “600Plat.350Irid.,” “550Pt.350Pd.50Ir.,” or “550Plat.350Pall.50Irid”).

    (5) An industry product consisting of at least 500 parts per thousand, but less than 850 parts per thousand, pure Platinum, and not consisting of at least 950 parts per thousand PGM, may be marked or stamped accurately, with a quality marking on the article, using parts per thousand and standard chemical abbreviations (e.g., “585 Pt., 415 Co.”).

    Note to § 23.6:

    Exemptions recognized in the assay of platinum industry products are listed in the appendix.

    § 23.7 Disclosure of surface-layer application of rhodium.

    It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose a surface-layer application of rhodium on products marked or described as precious metal.

    § 23.8 Misrepresentation as to products containing more than one precious metal.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the relative quantity of each precious metal in a product that contains more than than one precious metal. Marketers should list precious metals in the order of their relative weight in the product from greatest to least (i.e., leading with the predominant metal). Listing precious metals in order of relative weight is not necessary where it is clear to reasonable consumers from context that the metal listed first is not predominant.

    (b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:

    (1) Use of the terms “Platinum + Silver” to describe a product that contains more silver than platinum by weight.

    (2) Use of the terms “14K/Sterling” to describe a product that contains more silver than gold by weight.

    (c) The following are examples of markings and descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:

    (1) For a product comprised primarily of silver with a surface-layer application of platinum, “900 platinum over silver.”

    (2) For a product comprised primarily of silver with visually distinguishable parts of gold, “14k gold-accented silver.”

    (3) For a product comprised primarily of gold with visually distinguishable parts of platinum, “850 Platinum inset, 14K gold ring.”

    § 23.9 Misrepresentation as to content of pewter.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as “Pewter” or any abbreviation if such mark or description misrepresents the product's true composition.

    (b) An industry product or part thereof may be described or marked as “Pewter” or any abbreviation if it consists of at least 900 parts per 1,000 Grade A Tin, with the remainder composed of metals appropriate for use in pewter.

    § 23.10 Additional guidance for the use of quality marks.

    As used in these guides, the term quality mark means any letter, figure, numeral, symbol, sign, word, or term, or any combination thereof, that has been stamped, embossed, inscribed, or otherwise placed on any industry product and which indicates or suggests that any such product is composed throughout of any precious metal or any precious metal alloy or has a surface or surfaces on which there has been plated or deposited any precious metal or precious metal alloy. Included are the words “gold,” “karat,” “carat,” “silver,” “sterling,” “vermeil,” “platinum,” “iridium,” “palladium,” “ruthenium,” “rhodium,” or “osmium,” or any abbreviations thereof, whether used alone or in conjunction with the words “filled,” “plated,” “overlay,” or “electroplated,” or any abbreviations thereof. Quality markings include those in which the words or terms “gold,” “karat,” “silver,” “vermeil,” “platinum” (or platinum group metals), or their abbreviations are included, either separately or as suffixes, prefixes, or syllables.

    (a) Deception as to applicability of marks. (1) If a quality mark on an industry product is applicable to only part of the product, the part of the product to which it is applicable (or inapplicable) should be disclosed when, absent such disclosure, the location of the mark misrepresents the product or part's true composition.

    (2) If a quality mark is applicable to only part of an industry product, but not another part which is of similar surface appearance, each quality mark should be closely accompanied by an identification of the part or parts to which the mark is applicable.

    (b) Deception by reason of difference in the size of letters or words in a marking or markings. It is unfair or deceptive to place a quality mark on a product in which the words or letters appear in greater size than other words or letters of the mark, or when different markings placed on the product have different applications and are in different sizes, when the net impression of any such marking would be misleading as to the metallic composition of all or part of the product. (An example of improper marking would be the marking of a gold electroplated product with the word “electroplate” in small type and the word “gold” in larger type, with the result that purchasers and prospective purchasers of the product might only observe the word “gold.”)

    Note 1 to § 23.10:

    Legibility of markings. If a quality mark is engraved or stamped on an industry product, or is printed on a tag or label attached to the product, the quality mark should be of sufficient size type as to be legible to persons of normal vision, should be so placed as likely to be observed by purchasers, and should be so attached as to remain thereon until consumer purchase.

    Note 2 to § 23.10:

    Disclosure of identity of manufacturers, processors, or distributors. The National Stamping Act provides that any person, firm, corporation, or association, being a manufacturer or dealer subject to section 294 of the Act, who applies or causes to be applied a quality mark, or imports any article bearing a quality mark “which indicates or purports to indicate that such article is made in whole or in part of gold or silver or of an alloy of either metal” shall apply to the article the trademark or name of such person. 15 U.S.C. 297.

    § 23.11 Misuse of “corrosion proof,” “noncorrosive,” “corrosion resistant,” “rust proof,” “rust resistant,” etc.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to:

    (1) Use the terms “corrosion proof,” “noncorrosive,” “rust proof,” or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product will be immune from rust and other forms of corrosion during the life expectancy of the product; or

    (2) Use the terms “corrosion resistant,” “rust resistant,” or any other term of similar meaning to describe an industry product unless all parts of the product are of such composition as to not be subject to material damage by corrosion or rust during the major portion of the life expectancy of the product under normal conditions of use.

    (b) Among the metals that may be considered as corrosion (and rust) resistant are: Pure nickel; gold alloys of not less than 10 Kt. fineness; and austenitic stainless steels.

    § 23.12 Definition and misuse of the word “diamond.”

    (a) A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; and it has a refractive index of 2.42.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified word “diamond” to describe or identify any object or product not meeting the requirements specified in the definition of diamond provided above, or which, though meeting such requirements, has not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets.

    Note to Paragraph (b):

    It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that industrial grade diamonds or other non-jewelry quality diamonds are of jewelry quality.

    (c) The following are examples of descriptions that are not considered unfair or deceptive:

    (1) The use of the words “rough diamond” to describe or designate uncut or unfaceted objects or products satisfying the definition of diamond provided above; or

    (2) The use of the word “diamond” to describe or designate objects or products satisfying the definition of diamond but which have not been symmetrically fashioned with at least seventeen (17) polished facets when, in immediate conjunction with the word “diamond,” there is either a disclosure of the number of facets and shape of the diamond or the name of a type of diamond that denotes shape and that usually has less than seventeen (17) facets (e.g., “rose diamond”).

    (3) The use of the word “cultured” to describe laboratory-created diamonds that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds if the term is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure (for example, the words “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning) conveying that the product is not a mined stone.

    Note to Paragraph (c):

    Additional guidance about imitation and laboratory-created diamond representations and misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” “semi-precious,” and similar terms is set forth in §§ 23.25 and 23.27.

    § 23.13 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless” to describe any diamond that discloses flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots, clouds, internal lasering, or other blemishes or imperfections of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in diamond grading.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “perfect,” or any representation of similar meaning, to describe any diamond unless the diamond meets the definition of “flawless” and is not of inferior color or make.

    (c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words “flawless” or “perfect” to describe a ring or other article of jewelry having a “flawless” or “perfect” principal diamond or diamonds, and supplementary stones that are not of such quality, unless there is a disclosure that the description applies only to the principal diamond or diamonds.

    § 23.14 Disclosure of treatments to diamonds.

    A diamond is a gemstone product. Treatments to diamonds should be disclosed in the manner prescribed in § 23.24 of these guides (Disclosure of treatments to gemstones).

    § 23.15 Misuse of the term “blue white.”

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “blue white” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that under normal, north daylight or its equivalent shows any color or any trace of any color other than blue or bluish.

    § 23.16 Misuse of the term “properly cut,” etc.

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “properly cut,” “proper cut,” “modern cut,” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that is lopsided, or is so thick or so thin in depth as to detract materially from the brilliance of the stone.

    Note to § 23.16:

    Stones that are commonly called “fisheye” or “old mine” should not be described as “properly cut,” “modern cut,” etc.

    § 23.17 Misuse of the words “brilliant” and “full cut.”

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified expressions “brilliant,” “brilliant cut,” or “full cut” to describe, identify, or refer to any diamond except a round diamond that has at least thirty-two (32) facets plus the table above the girdle and at least twenty-four (24) facets below.

    Note to § 23.17:

    Such terms should not be applied to single or rose-cut diamonds. They may be applied to emerald-(rectangular) cut, pear-shaped, heart-shaped, oval-shaped, and marquise-(pointed oval) cut diamonds meeting the above-stated facet requirements when, in immediate conjunction with the term used, the form of the diamond is disclosed.

    § 23.18 Misrepresentation of weight and “total weight.”

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the weight of a diamond.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “point” or any abbreviation in any representation, advertising, marking, or labeling to describe the weight of a diamond, unless the weight is also stated as decimal parts of a carat (e.g., 25 points or .25 carat).

    Note to Paragraph (b):

    A carat is a standard unit of weight for a diamond and is equivalent to 200 milligrams (1/5 gram). A point is one one-hundredth (1/100) of a carat.

    (c) If diamond weight is stated as decimal parts of a carat (e.g., .47 carat), the stated figure should be accurate to the last decimal place. If diamond weight is stated to only one decimal place (e.g., .5 carat), the stated figure should be accurate to the second decimal place (e.g., “.5 carat” could represent a diamond weight between .495-.504).

    (d) If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, a conspicuous disclosure of the fact that the diamond weight is not exact should be made in close proximity to the fractional representation and a disclosure of a reasonable range of weight for each fraction (or the weight tolerance being used) should also be made.

    Note to Paragraph (d):

    When fractional representations of diamond weight are made, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, in catalogs or other printed materials, the disclosure of the fact that the actual diamond weight is within a specified range should be made conspicuously on every page where a fractional representation is made. Such disclosure may refer to a chart or other detailed explanation of the actual ranges used. For example, “Diamond weights are not exact; see chart on p. X for ranges.”

    § 23.19 Definitions of various pearls.

    As used in these guides, the terms set forth below have the following meanings:

    (a) Pearl: A calcareous concretion consisting essentially of alternating concentric layers of carbonate of lime and organic material formed within the body of certain mollusks, the result of an abnormal secretory process caused by an irritation of the mantle of the mollusk following the intrusion of some foreign body inside the shell of the mollusk, or due to some abnormal physiological condition in the mollusk, neither of which has in any way been caused or induced by humans.

    (b) Cultured pearl: The composite product created when a nucleus (usually a sphere of calcareous mollusk shell) planted by humans inside the shell or in the mantle of a mollusk is coated with nacre by the mollusk.

    (c) Imitation pearl: A manufactured product composed of any material or materials that simulate in appearance a pearl or cultured pearl.

    (d) Seed pearl: A small pearl, as defined in paragraph (a), that measures approximately two millimeters or less.

    § 23.20 Misuse of the word “pearl.”

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified word “pearl” or any other word or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any object or product that is not in fact a pearl, as defined in § 23.19(a).

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “pearl” to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “cultured” or “cultivated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

    (c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “pearl” to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

    (d) It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “faux pearl,” “fashion pearl,” “Mother of Pearl,” or any other such term to describe or qualify an imitation pearl product unless it is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is not a pearl.

    § 23.21 Misuse of terms such as “cultured pearl,” “seed pearl,” “Oriental pearl,” “natura,” “kultured,” “real,” “synthetic,” and regional designations.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “cultured pearl,” “cultivated pearl,” or any other word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any imitation pearl.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “seed pearl” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured or an imitation pearl, without using the appropriate qualifying term “cultured” (e.g., “cultured seed pearl”) or “simulated,” “artificial,” or “imitation” (e.g., “imitation seed pearl”).

    (c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “Oriental pearl” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any industry product other than a pearl taken from a salt water mollusk and of the distinctive appearance and type of pearls obtained from mollusks inhabiting the Persian Gulf and recognized in the jewelry trade as Oriental pearls.

    (d) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “Oriental” to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured or imitation pearl.

    (e) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “natura,” “natural,” “nature's,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to a cultured or imitation pearl. It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “organic” to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl, unless the term is qualified in such a way as to make clear that the product is not a natural or cultured pearl.

    (f) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “kultured,” “semi-cultured pearl,” “cultured-like,” “part-cultured,” “premature cultured pearl,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to an imitation pearl.

    (g) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “South Sea pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to a pearl that is taken from a salt water mollusk of the Pacific Ocean South Sea Islands, Australia, or Southeast Asia. It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “South Sea cultured pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to a cultured pearl formed in a salt water mollusk of the Pacific Ocean South Sea Islands, Australia, or Southeast Asia.

    (h) It is unfair or deceptive to use the term “Biwa cultured pearl” unless it describes, identifies, or refers to cultured pearls grown in fresh water mollusks in the lakes and rivers of Japan.

    (i) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “precious,” or any word, term, or phrase of like meaning to describe, identify, or refer to any imitation pearl.

    (j) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “synthetic” or similar terms to describe cultured or imitation pearls.

    (k) It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “Japanese Pearls,” “Chinese Pearls,” “Mallorca Pearls,” or any regional designation to describe, identify, or refer to any cultured or imitation pearl, unless the term is immediately preceded, with equal conspicuousness, by the word “cultured,” “artificial,” “imitation,” or “simulated,” or by some other word or phrase of like meaning, so as to indicate definitely and clearly that the product is a cultured or imitation pearl.

    § 23.22 Misrepresentation as to cultured pearls.

    It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent the manner in which cultured pearls are produced, the size of the nucleus artificially inserted in the mollusk and included in cultured pearls, the length of time that such products remained in the mollusk, the thickness of the nacre coating, the value and quality of cultured pearls as compared with the value and quality of pearls and imitation pearls, or any other material matter relating to the formation, structure, properties, characteristics, and qualities of cultured pearls.

    § 23.23 Disclosure of treatments to pearls and cultured pearls.

    It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a pearl or cultured pearl has been treated if:

    (a) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;

    (b) The treatment creates special care requirements for the pearl or cultured pearl. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser; or

    (c) The treatment has a significant effect on the product's value. The seller should disclose that the pearl or cultured pearl has been treated.

    Note to § 23.23:

    The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale, except that where a product can be purchased without personally viewing the product (e.g., direct mail catalogs, online services, televised shopping programs), disclosure should be made in the solicitation for, or description of, the product.

    § 23.24 Disclosure of treatments to gemstones.

    It is unfair or deceptive to fail to disclose that a gemstone has been treated if:

    (a) The treatment is not permanent. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and that the treatment is or may not be permanent;

    (b) The treatment creates special care requirements for the gemstone. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated and has special care requirements. It is also recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser; or

    (c) The treatment has a significant effect on the stone's value. The seller should disclose that the gemstone has been treated.

    Note to § 23.24:

    The disclosures outlined in this section are applicable to sellers at every level of trade, as defined in § 23.0(b) of these guides, and they may be made at the point of sale prior to sale, except that where a product can be purchased without personally viewing the product (e.g., direct mail catalogs, online services, televised shopping programs), disclosure should be made in the solicitation for, or description of, the product.

    § 23.25 Misuse of the words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” “stone,” “birthstone,” “gem,” “gemstone,” etc.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the unqualified words “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone to describe any product that is not in fact a mined stone of the type described.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or the name of any other precious or semi-precious stone, or the word “stone,” “birthstone,” “gem,” “gemstone,” or similar term to describe a laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, [manufacturer name]-created, synthetic, imitation, or simulated stone, unless such word or name is immediately preceded with equal conspicuousness by the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning, or by the word “imitation” or “simulated,” so as to disclose clearly the nature of the product and the fact it is not a mined gemstone.

    Note 1 to Paragraph (b):

    The use of the word “faux” to describe a laboratory-created or imitation stone is not an adequate disclosure that the stone is not a mined stone.

    Note 2 to Paragraph (b):

    Marketers may use the word “cultured” to describe laboratory-created gemstone products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the named stone if the term (e.g., “cultured ruby”) is qualified by a clear and conspicuous disclosure (for example, the words “laboratory-created,” “laboratory-grown,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” or some other word or phrase of like meaning) conveying that the product is not a mined stone. Additional guidance regarding the use of “cultured” to describe a laboratory-created diamond is set forth in § 23.12(c)(3).

    (c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “synthetic,” or other word or phrase of like meaning with the name of any natural stone to describe any industry product unless such product has essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as the stone named.

    (d) It is unfair or deceptive to describe products made with gemstone material and any amount of filler or binder, such as lead glass, in the following way:

    (1) With the unqualified word “ruby,” “sapphire,” “emerald,” “topaz,” or name of any other precious or semi-precious stone;

    (2) As a “treated ruby,” “treated sapphire,” “treated emerald,” “treated topaz,” or “treated [gemstone name]”;

    (3) As a “laboratory-grown [gemstone name],” “laboratory-created [gemstone name],” “[manufacturer name]-created [gemstone name],” “or “synthetic [gemstone name];” or

    (4) As a “composite [gemstone name],” “hybrid [gemstone name],” or “manufactured [gemstone name],” unless the term is qualified to disclose clearly and conspicuously that the product: (A) Does not have the same characteristics as the named stone; and (B) requires special care. It is further recommended that the seller disclose the special care requirements to the purchaser.

    § 23.26 Misrepresentation as to varietal name.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to mark or describe an industry product with the incorrect varietal name.

    (b) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading:

    (1) Use of the term “yellow emerald” to describe golden beryl or heliodor.

    (2) Use of the term “green amethyst” to describe prasiolite.

    Note to § 23.26:

    A varietal name is given for a division of gem species or genus based on a color, type of optical phenomenon, or other distinguishing characteristic of appearance.

    § 23.27 Misuse of the words “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” etc.

    It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” “semi-precious,” or similar terms to describe any industry product that is manufactured or produced artificially.

    § 23.28 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc.

    (a) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless” as a quality description of any gemstone that discloses blemishes, inclusions, or clarity faults of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in gemstone grading.

    (b) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “perfect” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any gemstone unless the gemstone meets the definition of “flawless” and is not of inferior color or make.

    (c) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless,” “perfect,” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any imitation gemstone.

    Appendix to Part 23—Exemptions Recognized in the Assay for Quality of Gold Alloy, Gold Filled, Gold Overlay, Rolled Gold Plate, Silver, and Platinum Industry Products

    (a) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a karat gold industry product include springs, posts, and separable backs of lapel buttons, posts and nuts for attaching interchangeable ornaments, bracelet and necklace snap tongues, metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering, field pieces and bezels for lockets,38 and wire pegs or rivets used for applying mountings and other ornaments, which mountings or ornaments shall be of the quality marked.

    38 Field pieces of lockets are those inner portions used as frames between the inside edges of the locket and the spaces for holding pictures. Bezels are the separable inner metal rings to hold the pictures in place.

    Note to Paragraph (a):

    Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a karat gold optical product include: the hinge assembly (barrel or other special types such as are customarily used in plastic frames); washers, bushings, and nuts of screw assemblies; dowels; springs for spring shoe straps; metal parts permanently encased in a non-metallic covering; and for oxfords,39 coil and joint springs.

    39 Oxfords are a form of eyeglasses where a flat spring joins the two eye rims and the tension it exerts on the nose serves to hold the unit in place. Oxfords are also referred to as pince nez.

    (b) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a gold filled, gold overlay and rolled gold plate industry product, other than watchcases, include joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., field pieces and bezels for lockets, posts and separate backs of lapel buttons, bracelet and necklace snap tongues, springs, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.

    Note to Paragraph (b):

    Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a gold filled, gold overlay and rolled gold plate optical product include: Screws; the hinge assembly (barrel or other special types such as are customarily used in plastic frames); washers, bushings, tubes and nuts of screw assemblies; dowels; pad inserts; springs for spring shoe straps, cores and/or inner windings of comfort cable temples; metal parts permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering; and for oxfords, the handle and catch.

    (c) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a silver industry product include screws, rivets, springs, spring pins for wrist watch straps; posts and separable backs of lapel buttons; wire pegs, posts, and nuts used for applying mountings or other ornaments, which mountings or ornaments shall be of the quality marked; pin stems (e.g., of badges, brooches, emblem pins, hat pins, and scarf pins, etc.); levers for belt buckles; blades and skeletons of pocket knives; field pieces and bezels for lockets; bracelet and necklace snap tongues; any other joints, catches, or screws; and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.

    (d) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of an industry product of silver in combination with gold include joints, catches, screws, pin stems, pins of scarf pins, hat pins, etc., posts and separable backs of lapel buttons, springs, bracelet and necklace snap tongues, and metallic parts completely and permanently encased in a nonmetallic covering.

    (e) Exemptions recognized in the industry and not to be considered in any assay for quality of a platinum industry product include springs, winding bars, sleeves, crown cores, mechanical joint pins, screws, rivets, dust bands, detachable movement rims, hat pin stems, and bracelet and necklace snap tongues.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17454 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 24 [CBP Dec. 18-09; Docket No. USCBP-2018-0033] RIN 1515-AE39 Refund of Alcohol Excise Tax AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Interim regulations; solicitation of comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document updates language in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the current organization of CBP and the Department of the Treasury. The document also eliminates a restriction pertaining to CBP's authority to refund excessive duties, taxes, fees, or interest imposed on distilled spirits, wine, and beer to facilitate implementation of Subpart A (Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform) of Part IX of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed December 22, 2017, commonly referred to as the Craft Beverage Modernization Act.

    DATES:

    This interim final rule is effective August 16, 2018; comments must be received by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-2018-0033, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket title for this rulemaking, and must reference docket number USCBP-2018-0033. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharolyn J. McCann, Supervisory Program Manager, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (571) 468-5478, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the effects that might result from this interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.

    Background

    CBP is amending § 24.36 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 24.36) regarding the authority of CBP to issue refunds of excessive duties, taxes, fees, or interest to:

    (1) Reflect changes in departmental organization, a statutory citation to account for the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and current form names and numbers. The current text refers to the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) organization that preceded the 1972 transfer of certain functions from the Internal Revenue Service to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. See Treasury Order 221 (June 6, 1972). The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, December 25, 2002) later transferred these functions described in 19 CFR 24.36(e) to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

    The reference to Internal Revenue Form 843 in § 24.36(e)(1) predates the 1963 republication of chapter I of title 19 (see 28 FR 14546, 14815 (Dec. 31, 1963)) and is obsolete. The current IRS Form 843 is not related to excise tax. Current TTB Form 5620.8, “Claim—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Taxes,” is the modern equivalent of the form referred to in the regulations.

    CBP is also removing references to the “port director” to allow for CBP to issue refunds either through electronic methods or by the ports or the Centers of Excellence and Expertise, and is making other grammatical changes as appropriate.

    (2) Add to CBP's refund authority the ability to refund taxes paid prior to assigning a reduced tax rate or tax credit for alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled spirits, as allowed by sections 13801-13808 (Subpart A—Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform, of Part IX) of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97) signed December 22, 2017, commonly referred to as the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA).

    The CBMA amended the Internal Revenue Code for two calendar years with respect to the tax treatment of alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled spirits. For an importer to be eligible to receive a reduced tax rate or a tax credit, the importer must be able to substantiate that the foreign producer has assigned an allotment of its reduced tax rate or tax credits to the beer, wine, or distilled spirits imported by that importer. The new § 24.36(d)(10) makes it clear that CBP has authority to refund the difference between the full excise taxes an importer pays at the time of entry summary filing and the CBMA's lower effective tax rate. An importer must request and substantiate its entitlement to the reduced tax rate or tax credit appropriately.

    Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553 govern agency rulemaking procedures. Section 553(b) of the APA generally requires notice and public comment before issuance of a final rule. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA requires that a final rule have a 30-day delayed effective date. The APA, however, provides exceptions from the prior notice and public comment requirement and the delayed effective date requirements, when an agency for good cause finds that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

    Treasury and CBP find that prior notice and comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists to issue these regulations effective upon publication. Prior notice and comment are unnecessary because the rule does not substantively alter the underlying rights or interests of importers or filers, but instead makes technical corrections and makes clear that importers may obtain the benefit of a lower effective tax rate by filing a refund claim with CBP.

    Executive Orders 13563, 12866, and 13771

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) and 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

    This interim rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this regulation. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The information collection activities associated with the existing requirements related to the submission of a TTB Form 5620.8 are currently approved by OMB under OMB control number 1513-0030. There is no change in burden hours as a result of this rule.

    Signing Authority

    This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his or her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain CBP revenue functions.

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 24

    Accounting, Claims, Harbors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Taxes.

    Amendments to Part 24 of the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 19 CFR part 24 is amended as set forth below.

    PART 24—CUSTOMS FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE 1. The general citation for part 24 continues, and the specific authority citation for § 24.36 is revised, to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1520, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 3717, 9701; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

    Section 24.36 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6423; Pub. L. 115-97.

    2. In § 24.36: a. Paragraph (d) introductory text is revised; b. Amend paragraph (d)(8) by removing the word “or” at the end of the paragraph; c. Amend paragraph (d)(9) by removing the period at the end of the paragraph and adding in its place “; or”; d. Paragraph (d)(10) is added; and e. Paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) are revised.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 24.36 Refunds of excessive duties, taxes, etc.

    (d) The authority of CBP to make refunds pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section of excessive deposits of alcohol or tobacco taxes, as defined in section 6423(d)(1), Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6423(d)(1)), is confined to cases of the types which are excepted from the application of section 6423, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6423). The excepted types of cases and, therefore, the types in which CBP is authorized to make refunds of such taxes are those in which:

    (10) For alcohol excise taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code, the refund of tax is claimed pursuant to the assignment of a reduced tax rate or tax credit to an importer by a foreign producer in accordance with CBP implementation of sections 13801-13808 of Public Law 115-97 (December 22, 2017).

    (e) * * *

    (1) CBP will provide the following notice to the importer of record: “Claim for refund of any overpayment of internal revenue tax on this entry must be executed and filed with the Director, National Revenue Center, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), in accordance with TTB regulations (Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations).” On request of the claimant, CBP will issue a statement identifying the entry, showing the amount of internal revenue tax deposited with respect to each entry for which a claim on TTB Form 5620.8 is to be made, and showing the date of issuance of the notice of refund of duty.

    (2) The claim must be executed on TTB Form 5620.8 (Claim—Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Taxes) and must be filed with the Director, National Revenue Center, TTB. The certified statement must be attached to and filed in support of such claim which may include refunds under more than one entry but is limited to refunds under entries filed at the same port and the same internal revenue region. The data to be shown on the claim must be as prescribed in TTB regulations, with the exception that any data on the certified statement also required to be shown in the claim need not be restated in the claim.

    (3) The date of allowance of refund or credit in respect of such tax for the purposes of section 6407, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. 6407), will be that date on which a claim is perfected and the refund is authorized for scheduling under the applicable TTB regulations.

    Kevin K. McAleenan, Commissioner. Approved: August 13, 2018. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17710 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0732] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Michigan Championships; Detroit River; Detroit, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for certain waters of the Detroit River, Detroit, MI. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after the swim portion of the Michigan Championship Triathlon.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 2, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0732 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this swim event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

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

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

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

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary special local regulation from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 2, 2018. In light of the aforementioned hazards, the COTP has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and participants. The special local regulation will encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River and Belle Isle Beach between the following two lines: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.517′ N, 082°59.159′ W to 42°20.705′ N, 082°59.233′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.754′ N, 082°58.681′ W to 42°20.997′ N, 082°58.846′ W (NAD 83).

    An on-scene representative of the COTP may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event. Vessel operators desiring to transit through the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9560.

    The COTP or his designated on-scene representative will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the special local regulation. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this special local regulation zone which will impact a small designated area of the Detroit River from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on September 2, 2018. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the special local regulation and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the area.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

    2. Add § 100.T09-0732 to read as follows:
    § 100.T09-0732 Special Local Regulation; Michigan Championships; Detroit River; Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. A regulated area is established to encompass the following waterway: All waters of the Detroit River and Belle Isle Beach between the following two lines: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.517′ N, 082°59.159′ W to 42°20.705′ N, 082°59.233′ W (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°20.754′ N, 082°58.681′ W to 42°20.997′ N, 082°58.846′ W (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 2, 2018.

    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Vessels transiting through the regulated area are to maintain the minimum speeds for safe navigation.

    (2) Vessel operators desiring to operate in the regulated area must contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (313) 568-9560. Vessel operators given permission to operate within the regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

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

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17699 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2018-0683] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Dunkirk Harbor, Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Dunkirk Harbor during the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with this regatta. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 2018 until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2018-0683 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 LTJG Sean Dolan, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On March 22, 2018, Dunkirk Local Development Corporation and Dunkirk Festivals notified the Coast Guard that it will conducting a professional high speed powerboat race from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018. In response, on July 23, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY” (83 FR 34804, July 23, 2018). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended August 7, 2018, we received no comments.

    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 would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the planned event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined the Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix presents significant risks to the public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the event takes place.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published July 23, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018, with a rain date of August 18, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42°29′37.7″ N, 079°21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42°29′45.2″ N, 079°21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42°30′15.0″ N, 079°21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079°19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42°30′09.3″ N, 079°19′03.1″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to enhance the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. boat races.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which impacts a small designated area of Dunkirk Harbor. The event will also have built in times where vessels will be able to transit through the safety zone during breaks. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the 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.

    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 establishes a temporary safety zone. 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:

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0683 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0683 Safety Zone; Great Lakes Offshore Grand Prix; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY starting at position 42° 29′37.7″ N, 079° 21′17.7″ W then Northwest to 42° 29′45.2″ N, 079° 21′28.2″ W then Northeast to 42° 30′15.0″ N, 079° 21′20.0″ W then Northeast to 42°30′39.0″ N, 079° 19′46.0″ W then Southeast to 42° 30′09.3″ N, 079° 19′03.1″ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2018 with a rain date of August 18, 2018.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Kenneth E. Blair, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17697 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2018-0777] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Sandusky Bicentennial Fireworks, Sandusky Bay, Sandusky, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Sandusky Bay, in the vicinity of Sandusky, OH. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Sandusky Bay for the Sandusky Bicentennial Fireworks. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with fireworks displays.

    DATES:

    This temporary final rule is effective from 8:10 p.m. through 9:35 p.m. on August 19th, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2018-0777. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email MST1 Ryan Erpelding, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419) 418-6037, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Waiting for a 30-day effective period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks displays starting after 9:10 p.m. on August 19th, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 420 foot radius of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris falling into the water presents risks of collisions, which could result in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 8:10 p.m. through 9:35 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the Sandusky Bay within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°27′53.31″ N, 082°42′15.85″ W with an alternate heavy wind location at position 41°27′55.24″ N, 082°42′17.86″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The majority of vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around the safety zone, which will impact only a portion of the Sandusky Bay in Sandusky, OH for a period of 85 minutes. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism

    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 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 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 85 minutes that will prohibit entry within a 420 foot radius from where a fireworks display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0777 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0777 Safety Zone; Sandusky Bicentennial Fireworks, Sandusky Bay, Sandusky, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of the Sandusky Bay within a 420 foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at position 41°27′53.31″ N, 082°42′15.85″ W with an alternate heavy wind location at 41°27′55.24″ N, 82°42′17.86″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 8:10 p.m. through 9:35 p.m. on August 19, 2018. The Captain of the Port Detroit, or a designated representative may suspend enforcement of the safety zone at any time.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    (3) The “designated representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Jeffrey W. Novak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17698 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Part 552 [GSAR Change 89; GSAR Case 2016-G506; Docket No. 2016-0016; Sequence No.2] RIN 3090-AJ75 General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Federal Supply Schedule, Order-Level Materials; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    GSA is amending the General Services Administration Regulation (GSAR) to clarify the text regarding the application of the threshold for order-level materials (OLMs).

    DATES:

    Effective: August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Leah Price, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, Senior Policy Advisor, at [email protected] For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2016-G506.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    GSAR Case 2016-G506; Federal Supply Schedule, Order-Level Materials, was published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 3275, on January 24, 2018. Since then, clarification is required regarding the application of the 33.33 percent threshold of order-level materials (OLMs) for task or delivery orders and orders against Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) BPAs awarded under FSS contracts at GSAR 552.238-82(d)(4).

    II. Discussion of Changes

    GSAR clause 552.238-82(d) Special Ordering Procedures for the Acquisition of Order-Level Materials prescribes procedures for including OLMs when placing an order against a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract or FSS BPA. The procedures at d(4) of the clause require that the value of OLMs in an order awarded under a FSS contract or FSS BPA shall not exceed 33.33 percent of the total value of the order. The text at d(4) of the clause is being amended to clarify the applicability of the 33.33 percent threshold on OLMs placed in a task or delivery order or the cumulative value of OLMs in orders against an FSS BPA awarded under a FSS contract. There are no significant content changes resulting from this technical amendment.

    III. Public Comments Not Required

    41 U.S.C. 1707, Publication of proposed regulations, applies to the publication of the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment because it contains minor editorial updates without changing the meaning of content. The changes do not have a significant impact on the public.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives; and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Executive Order 13771

    The General Services Administration certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this editorial change does not have a significant impact on the public or Government.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant GSAR revision and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any information collection that requires additional approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 552

    Government procurement.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Jeffrey A. Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, General Services Administration.

    Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR part 552 as set forth below:

    PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c).

    2. Amend section 552.238-82 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
    552.238-82 Special Ordering Procedures for the Acquisition of Order-Level Materials.

    (d) * * *

    (4) The value of order-level materials in a task or delivery order, or the cumulative value of order-level materials in orders against an FSS BPA awarded under a FSS contract shall not exceed 33.33 percent.

    [FR Doc. 2018-17639 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 170828822-70999-02] RIN 0648-XG392 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 2018 Commercial Quota Harvested for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the 2018 summer flounder commercial quota allocated to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been harvested. Vessels issued a commercial Federal fisheries permit for the summer flounder fishery may not land summer flounder in Massachusetts for the remainder of calendar year 2018, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state. Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery require publication of this notification to advise Massachusetts that the quota has been harvested, and to advise vessel and dealer permit holders that no Federal commercial quota is available to land summer flounder in Massachusetts.

    DATES:

    Effective 0001 hours local time, August 14, 2018, through December 31, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cynthia Hanson, (978) 281-9180, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned on a percentage basis among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102.

    The overall commercial quota for summer flounder in the 2018 fishing year is 6,436,120 lb (2,919,375 kg) (83 FR 4165, January 30, 2018). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer flounder in Massachusetts is 6.82046 percent, resulting in an initial state commercial quota of 438,973 lb (199,115 kg). However, Massachusetts' initial 2018 commercial quota was reduced to 404,742 lb (183,588 kg) due to a 2017 quota overage of 34,231 lb (15,527 kg). Massachusetts has received one quota transfer of 5,450 lb (2,472 kg) from North Carolina on March 9, 2018 (83 FR 11146), bringing its commercial quota to 410,192 lb (186,060 kg).

    The NMFS Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator), monitors the state commercial landings and determines when a state's commercial quota has been harvested. NMFS is required to publish notification in the Federal Register advising and notifying Federally permitted commercial vessels and dealers that, effective upon a specific date, the state's commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is available for landing summer flounder in that state. The Regional Administrator has determined, based upon dealer reports and other available information, that the 2018 Massachusetts commercial summer flounder quota will be harvested by August 14, 2018.

    Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal permit holders agree, as a condition of the permit, not to land summer flounder in any state that the Regional Administrator has determined no longer has commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours local time, August 14, 2018, landings of summer flounder in Massachusetts by vessels holding summer flounder commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for the remainder of the 2018 calendar year, unless additional quota becomes available through a transfer and is announced in the Federal Register. Effective 0001 hours local time, August 14, 2018, federally permitted dealers are also notified that they may not purchase summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in Massachusetts for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional quota becomes available through a transfer from another state.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest. This action closes the commercial summer flounder fishery for Massachusetts until January 1, 2019, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.103(b) require such action to ensure that summer flounder vessels do not exceed quotas allocated to the states. If implementation of this closure was delayed to solicit prior public comment, the quota for this fishing year will be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. The Assistant Administrator further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reason stated above.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Jennifer M. Wallace, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17620 Filed 8-13-18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 159 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [NRC-2017-0024] RIN 3150-AJ93 Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code Cases AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference proposed revisions of three regulatory guides (RGs), which would approve new, revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). This proposed action would allow nuclear power plant licensees, and applicants for construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, standard design certifications, standard design approvals and manufacturing licenses, to use the Code Cases listed in these draft RGs as voluntary alternatives to engineering standards for the construction, inservice inspection (ISI), and inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components. The NRC is requesting comments on this proposed rule and on the draft versions of the three RGs proposed to be incorporated by reference. The NRC is also making available a related draft RG that lists Code Cases that the NRC has not approved for use. This draft RG will not be incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on the proposed rule and related guidance by October 30, 2018. Submit comments specific to the information collections aspects of this rule by September 17, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only of comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule and related guidance by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0024. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Ellenson, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-0894, email: [email protected]; and Giovanni Facco, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-6337; email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    Executive Summary A. Need for the Regulatory Action

    The purpose of this regulatory action is to incorporate by reference into the NRC's regulations the latest revisions of three RGs (currently in draft form for comment). The three draft RGs identify new, revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases published by the ASME, which the NRC has determined are acceptable for use as voluntary alternatives to compliance with certain provisions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV Code) and ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) currently incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations.

    B. Major Provisions

    The three draft RGs that the NRC proposes to incorporate by reference are RG 1.84, “Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,” Revision 38 (Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-1345); RG 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” Revision 19 (DG-1342); and RG 1.192, “Operation and Maintenance [OM] Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,” Revision 3 (DG-1343). This proposed action would allow nuclear power plant licensees and applicants for construction permits (CPs), operating licenses (OLs), combined licenses (COLs), standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses, to use the Code Cases newly listed in these revised RGs as voluntary alternatives to engineering standards for the construction, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plant components. The NRC also notes the availability of a proposed version of RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,” Revision 6 (DG-1344). This document lists Code Cases that the NRC has not approved for generic use, and will not be incorporated by reference into the NRC's regulations. The NRC is not requesting comment on DG-1344.

    The NRC prepared a draft regulatory analysis to determine the expected quantitative costs and benefits of this proposed rule, as well as qualitative factors to be considered in the NRC's rulemaking decision. The analysis concluded that this proposed rule would result in net savings to the industry and the NRC. As shown below, the estimated total net benefit relative to the regulatory baseline, the quantitative benefits outweigh the costs by a range from approximately $6.72 million (7-percent net present value (NPV)) to $7.48 million (3-percent NPV).

    Total Averted Costs (Costs) Attribute Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry Implementation $0 $0 $0 Industry Operation 6,130,000 5,200,000 5,700,000 Total Industry Costs 6,130,000 5,200,000 5,700,000 NRC Implementation (360,000) (360,000) (360,000) NRC Operation 2,380,000 1,880,000 2,140,000 Total NRC Cost 2,020,000 1,520,000 1,780,000 Net 8,150,000 6,720,000 7,480,000

    The regulatory analysis also considered the following qualitative considerations: (1) Flexibility and decreased uncertainty for licensees when making modifications or preparing to perform ISI or IST; (2) consistency with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), which encourages Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry; (3) consistency with the NRC's policy of evaluating the latest versions of consensus standards in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulations and regulatory guides; and (4) consistency with the NRC's goal to harmonize with international standards to improve regulatory efficiency for both the NRC and international standards groups.

    The draft regulatory analysis concludes that this proposed rule should be adopted because it is justified when integrating the cost-beneficial quantitative results and the positive and supporting nonquantitative considerations in the decision. For more information, please see the regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML18099A054).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information B. Submitting Comments II. Background III. Discussion A. Code Cases Proposed to be Approved for Unconditional Use B. Code Cases Proposed to be Approved for Use With Conditions 1. ASME BPV Code, Section III Code Cases (DG-1345/RG 1.84) 2. ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code Cases (DG-1342/RG 1.147) 3. OM Code Cases (DG-1343/RG 1.192) C. ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use (DG-1344/RG 1.193) IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification VI. Regulatory Analysis VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality VIII. Plain Writing IX. Environmental Assessment and Proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards XII. Incorporation by Reference—Reasonable Availability to Interested Parties XIII. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0024 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0024.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0024 in the subject line of your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    The ASME develops and publishes the ASME BPV Code, which contains requirements for the design, construction, and ISI examination of nuclear power plant components, and the ASME OM Code,1 which contains requirements for IST of nuclear power plant components. In response to BPV and OM Code user requests, the ASME develops Code Cases that provide voluntary alternatives to BPV and OM Code requirements under special circumstances.

    1 The editions and addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants have had different titles from 2005 to 2017, and are referred to collectively in this rule as the “OM Code.”

    The NRC approves the ASME BPV and OM Codes in § 50.55a, “Codes and standards,” of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) through the process of incorporation by reference. As such, each provision of the ASME Codes incorporated by reference into, and mandated by § 50.55a constitutes a legally-binding NRC requirement imposed by rule. As noted previously, ASME Code Cases, for the most part, represent alternative approaches for complying with provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. Accordingly, the NRC periodically amends § 50.55a to incorporate by reference the NRC's RGs listing approved ASME Code Cases that may be used as voluntary alternatives to the BPV and OM Codes.2

    2 See Federal Register notice (FRN), “Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM Code Cases” (68 FR 40469; July 8, 2003).

    This proposed rule is the latest in a series of rules that incorporate by reference new versions of several RGs identifying new, revised, and reaffirmed,3 and unconditionally or conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases that the NRC approves for use. In developing these RGs, the NRC staff reviews ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, determines the acceptability of each Code Case, and publishes its findings in the RGs. The RGs are revised periodically as new Code Cases are published by the ASME. The NRC incorporates by reference the RGs listing acceptable and conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases into § 50.55a. The NRC published a final rule dated January 17, 2018 (83 FR 2331) that incorporated by reference into § 50.55a the most recent versions of the RGs, which are: RG 1.84, “Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,” Revision 37; RG 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” Revision 18; and RG 1.192, “Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,” Revision 2.

    3 Code Cases are categorized by ASME as one of three types: New, revised, or reaffirmed. A new Code Case provides for a new alternative to specific ASME Code provisions or addresses a new need. The ASME defines a revised Code Case to be a revision (modification) to an existing Code Case to address, for example, technological advancements in examination techniques or to address NRC conditions imposed in one of the RGs that have been incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. The ASME defines “reaffirmed” as an OM Code Case that does not have any change to technical content, but includes editorial changes.

    III. Discussion

    This proposed rule would incorporate by reference the latest revisions of the NRC's RGs that list ASME BPV and OM Code Cases that the NRC finds to be acceptable, or acceptable with NRC-specified conditions (“conditionally acceptable”). Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 38, DG-1345, would supersede the incorporation by reference of Revision 37; RG 1.147, Revision 19, DG-1342, would supersede the incorporation by reference of Revision 18; and RG 1.192, Revision 3, DG-1343, would supersede the incorporation by reference of Revision 2.

    The ASME Code Cases that are the subject of this proposed rule are the new and revised Section III and Section XI Code Cases as listed in Supplement 11 to the 2010 BPV Code through Supplement 7 to the 2013 BPV Code, and the OM Code Cases published at the same time as the 2017 Edition. Additional Section XI Code Cases published from the 2015 Edition of the BPV Code are also included at the request of the ASME.

    The latest editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes that the NRC has approved for use are referenced in § 50.55a. The ASME also publishes Code Cases that provide alternatives to existing Code requirements that the ASME developed and approved. This proposed rule would incorporate by reference RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192 allowing nuclear power plant licensees, and applicants for combined licenses, standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses under the regulations that govern license certifications, to use the Code Cases listed in these RGs as suitable alternatives to the ASME BPV and OM Codes for the construction, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plant components. The ASME publishes Code Cases in a separate document but at the same time as specific editions of the ASME OM Code. The ASME also publishes BPV Code Cases in a separate document and at a different time than ASME BPV Code Editions. This proposed rule identifies Code Cases by the edition of the ASME BPV Code or ASME OM Code under which they were published by ASME. This proposed rule only accepts Code Cases for use in lieu of the specific editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes incorporated by reference in § 50.55a.

    The following general guidance applies to the use of the ASME Code Cases approved in the latest versions of the RGs that are incorporated by reference into § 50.55a as part of this proposed rule. Specifically, the use of the Code Cases listed in RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192 are acceptable with the specified conditions when implementing the editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a.

    The approval of a Code Case in the NRC's RGs constitutes acceptance of its technical position for applications that are not precluded by regulatory or other requirements or by the recommendations in these or other RGs. The applicant and/or licensee is responsible for ensuring that use of the Code Case does not conflict with regulatory requirements or licensee commitments. The Code Cases listed in the RGs are acceptable for use within the limits specified in the Code Cases. If the RG states an NRC condition on the use of a Code Case, then the NRC condition supplements and does not supersede any condition(s) specified in the Code Case, unless otherwise stated in the NRC condition.

    The ASME Code Cases may be revised for many reasons (e.g., to incorporate operational examination and testing experience and to update material requirements based on research results). On occasion, an inaccuracy in an equation is discovered or an examination, as practiced, is found not to be adequate to detect a newly discovered degradation mechanism.

    Therefore, when an applicant or a licensee initially implements a Code Case, § 50.55a requires that the applicant or the licensee implement the most recent version of that Code Case, as listed in the RGs incorporated by reference. Code Cases superseded by revision are no longer acceptable for new applications unless otherwise indicated.

    Section III of the ASME BPV Code applies only to new construction (i.e., the edition and addenda to be used in the construction of a plant are selected based on the date of the construction permit and are not changed thereafter, except voluntarily by the applicant or the licensee). Hence, if a Section III Code Case is implemented by an applicant or a licensee and a later version of the Code Case is incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and listed in the RG, the applicant or the licensee may use either version of the Code Case (subject, however, to whatever change requirements apply to its licensing basis (e.g., § 50.59)) until the next mandatory ISI or IST update.

    A licensee's ISI and IST programs must be updated every 10 years to the latest edition and addenda of ASME BPV Code, Section XI, and the OM Code, respectively, that were incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and in effect 12 months prior to the start of the next inspection and testing interval. Licensees that were using a Code Case prior to the effective date of its revision may continue to use the previous version for the remainder of the 120-month ISI or IST interval. This relieves licensees of the burden of having to update their ISI or IST program each time a Code Case is revised by the ASME and approved for use by the NRC. Code Cases apply to specific editions and addenda, and Code Cases may be revised if they are no longer accurate or adequate, so licensees choosing to continue using a Code Case during the subsequent ISI or IST interval must implement the latest version incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and listed in the RGs.

    The ASME may annul Code Cases that are no longer required, are determined to be inaccurate or inadequate, or have been incorporated into the BPV or OM Codes. A Code Case may be revised, for example, to incorporate user experience. The older or superseded version of the Code Case cannot be applied by the licensee or applicant for the first time.

    If an applicant or a licensee applied a Code Case before it was listed as superseded, the applicant or the licensee may continue to use the Code Case until the applicant or the licensee updates its construction Code of Record (in the case of an applicant, updates its application) or until the licensee's 120-month ISI or IST update interval expires, after which the continued use of the Code Case is prohibited unless NRC authorization is given under § 50.55a(z). If a Code Case is incorporated by reference into § 50.55a and later a revised version is issued by the ASME because experience has shown that the design analysis, construction method, examination method, or testing method is inadequate; the NRC will amend § 50.55a and the relevant RG to remove the approval of the superseded Code Case. Applicants and licensees should not begin to implement such superseded Code Cases in advance of the rulemaking.

    A. Code Cases Proposed To Be Approved for Unconditional Use

    The Code Cases discussed in Table I are new, revised or reaffirmed Code Cases in which the NRC is not proposing any conditions. The table identifies the draft regulatory guide listing the applicable Code Case that the NRC proposes to approve for use.

    Table I Code case No. Published with supplement Title Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III (addressed in DG-1345, Table 1) N-60-6 11 (2010 Edition) Material for Core Support Structures, Section III, Division 1. N-249-15 7 (2013 Edition) Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Classes 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated Without Welding, Section III, Division 1. N-284-4 11 (2010 Edition) Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class MC, TC, and SC Construction Section III, Divisions 1 and 3. N-520-6 1 (2013 Edition) Alternative Rules for Renewal of Active or Expired N-type Certificates for Plants Not in Active Construction, Section III, Division 1. N-801-1 11 (2010 Edition) Rules for Repair of N-Stamped Class 1, 2, and 3 Components Section III, Division 1. N-822-2 7 (2013 Edition) Application of the ASME Certification Mark Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 5. N-833 1 (2013 Edition) Minimum Non-prestressed Reinforcement in the Containment Base Mat or Slab Required for Concrete Crack Control, Section III, Division 2. N-834 3 (2013 Edition) ASTM A988/A988M-11 UNS S31603, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, Section III, Division 1. N-836 3 (2013 Edition) Heat Exchanger Tube Mechanical Plugging, Class 1, Section III, Division 1. N-841 4 (2013 Edition) Exemptions to Mandatory Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) of SA-738 Grade B for Class MC Applications, Section III, Division 1. N-844 5 (2013 Edition) Alternatives to the Requirements of NB-4250(c), Section III, Division 1. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI (addressed in DG-1342, Table 1) N-513-4 6 (2013 Edition) Evaluation of Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping, Section XI, Division 1. N-528-1 5 (1998 Edition) Purchase, Exchange, or Transfer of Material Between Nuclear Plant Sites Section XI, Division 1. N-661-3 6 (2015 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 2 and 3 Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, Section XI, Division 1. N-762-1 3 (2013 Edition) Temper Bead Procedure Qualification Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities without Postweld Heat Treatment, Section XI, Division 1. N-789-2 5 (2015 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Pad Reinforcement of Class 2 and 3 Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, Section XI, Division 1. N-823-1 4 (2013 Edition) Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1. N-839 7 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature SMAW 1 Temper Bead Technique Section XI, Division 1. N-842 4 (2013 Edition) Alternative Inspection Program for Longer Fuel Cycles Section XI, Division 1. N-853 6 (2015 Edition) PWR 2 Class 1 Primary Piping Alloy 600 Full Penetration Branch Connection Weld Metal Buildup for Material Susceptible to Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking, Section XI, Division 1. N-854 1 (2015 Edition) Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 2 and 3 Components Connected to the Class 1 Boundary, Section XI, Division 1. OM Code (addressed in DG-1343, Table 1) OMN-16 Revision 2 2017 Edition Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. OMN-21 2017 Edition Alternative Requirements for Adjusting Hydraulic Parameters to Specified Reference Points. 1 Shielded metal arc welding. 2 Pressurized water reactor. B. Code Cases Approved for Use With Conditions

    The NRC has determined that certain Code Cases, as issued by the ASME, are generally acceptable for use, but that the alternative requirements specified in those Code Cases must be supplemented in order to provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. Accordingly, the NRC proposes to impose conditions on the use of these Code Cases to modify, limit or clarify their requirements. The conditions would specify, for each applicable Code Case, the additional activities that must be performed, the limits on the activities specified in the Code Case, and/or the supplemental information needed to provide clarity. These ASME Code Cases, listed in Table II, are included in Table 2 of DG-1345 (RG 1.84), DG-1342 (RG 1.147), and DG-1343 (RG 1.192). The NRC's evaluation of the Code Cases and the reasons for the NRC's proposed conditions are discussed in the following paragraphs. Notations have been made to indicate the conditions duplicated from previous versions of the RG.

    The NRC requests public comment on these Code Cases and the proposed conditions. It should also be noted that the following paragraphs only address those Code Cases for which the NRC proposes to impose condition(s), which are listed in the RG for the first time.

    Table II Code case No. Published with supplement Title Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III (addressed in DG-1345, Table 2) N-71-19 0 (2013 Edition) Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated by Welding, Section III, Division 1. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI (addressed in DG-1342, Table 2) N-516-4 7 (2013 Edition) Underwater Welding, Section XI, Division 1. N-597-3 5 (2013 Edition) Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, Division 1. N-606-2 2 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW 1 Temper Bead Technique for BWR 2 CRD 3 Housing/Stub Tube Repairs, Section XI, Division 1. N-638-7 2 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. N-648-2 7 (2013 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examinations of Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1. N-695-1 0 (15 Edition) Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Section XI, Division 1. N-696-1 6 (2013 Edition) Qualification Requirements for Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping Examination Conducted from the Inside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. N-702 12 (2001 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Nozzle Inner Radius and Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, Section XI, Division 1. N-705 (Errata) 11 (2010 Edition) Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks, Section XI, Division 1. N-711-1 0 (2017 Edition) Alternative Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B-F, B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2, and R-A Piping Welds, Section XI, Division 1. N-754-1 1 (2013 Edition) Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of PWR Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. N-766-1 1 (2013 Edition) Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of PWR Full Penetration Circumferential Nickel Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. N-824 11 (2010 Edition) Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Piping Welds From the Outside Surface Section XI, Division 1. N-829 0 (2013 Edition) Austenitic Stainless Steel Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. N-830 7 (2013 Edition) Direct Use of Master Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI, Division 1. N-831 0 (2017 Edition) Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe, Section XI, Division 1. N-838 2 (2015 Edition) Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1. N-843 4 (2013 Edition) Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements Following Repairs or Replacements for Class 1 Piping between the First and Second Injection Isolation Valves, Section XI, Division 1. N-849 7 (2013 Edition) In situ VT-3 Examination of Removable Core Support Structures Without Removal, Section XI, Division 1. OM Code (addressed in DG-1343, Table 2) OMN-1 Revision 2 2017 Edition Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Active Electric Motor. OMN-3 2017 Edition Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Components Using Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of LWR 4 Power Plants. OMN-4 2017 Edition Requirements for Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of Check Valves at LWR Power Plants. OMN-9 2017 Edition Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. OMN-12 2017 Edition Alternative Requirements for Inservice Testing Using Risk Insights for Pneumatically and Hydraulically Operated Valve Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants (OM-Code 1998, Subsection ISTC). OMN-18 2017 Edition Alternate Testing Requirements for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within ±20% of Design Flow. OMN-19 2017 Edition Alternative Upper Limit for the Comprehensive Pump Test. OMN-20 2017 Edition Inservice Test Frequency. 1 Gas tungsten arc welding. 2 Boiling water reactor. 3 Control rod drive. 4 Light water reactor. 1. ASME BPV Code, Section III Code Cases (DG-1345/RG 1.84) Code Case N-71-19 [Supplement 0, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated by Welding.

    The first condition on Code Case N-71-19 is identical to the first condition on Code Case N-71-18 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition stated that, “The maximum measured ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of the component support material must not exceed 170 ksi in view of the susceptibility of high strength materials to brittleness and stress corrosion cracking.” When ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the first condition. Therefore, the first condition would be retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

    The second condition on Code Case N-71-18 was removed because it related to materials of up to 190 ksi and the first condition has a UTS limit of 170 ksi on materials. The staff is not aware of any materials listed in this Code Case to which this condition would apply so it was deleted and the subsequent conditions renumbered.

    The second condition on Code Case N-71-19 is an update to the third condition on Revision 18 of the Code Case. This condition has been modified so that it references the correct sentence and paragraph of the revised Code Case and now refers to paragraph 5.2 of the Code Case, instead of paragraph 5.5 to reference “5.3.2.3, `Alternative Atmosphere Exposure Time Periods Established by Test,' of the AWS [American Welding Society] D1.1 Code for the evidence presented to and accepted by the Authorized Inspector concerning exposure of electrodes for a longer period of time.” The basis for this change is that the paragraph of the Code Case identified by this condition has been renumbered and is now 5.2. When ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the second condition. Therefore, the second condition would be retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

    The third condition on Code Case N-71-19 is substantively the same as the fourth condition on Code Case N-71-18 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of RG 1.84 in August 2005, except that it now references the renumbered paragraphs of the revised Code Case. The condition now reads “Paragraph 16.2.2 of Code Case N-71-19 is not acceptable as written and must be replaced with the following: `When not exempted by 16.2.1 above, the post weld heat treatment must be performed in accordance with NF-4622 except that ASTM A-710 Grade A Material must be at least 1000 °F (540 °C) and must not exceed 1150 °F (620 °C) for Class 1 and 2 material and 1175 °F (640 °C) for Class 3 material.' ” When ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the third condition. Therefore, the third condition would be retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

    The fourth condition on Code Case N-71-19 is identical to the fifth condition on Code Case N-71-18 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition stated that, “The new holding time-at-temperature for weld thickness (nominal) must be 30 minutes for welds 1/2 inch or less in thickness, 1 hour per inch of thickness for welds over 1/2 inch to 5 inches, and for thicknesses over 5 inches, 5 hours plus 15 minutes for each additional inch over 5 inches.” When ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the fourth condition. Therefore, the fourth condition would be retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

    The fifth condition on Code Case N-71-19 is identical to the sixth condition on Code Case N-71-18 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 33 of RG 1.84 in August 2005. The condition stated that, “The fracture toughness requirements as listed in this Code Case apply only to piping supports and not to Class 1, 2 and 3 component supports.” When ASME revised N-71, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the fifth condition. Therefore, the fifth condition would be retained in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

    The sixth condition is a new condition, which states that when welding P-Number materials listed in the Code Case, the corresponding S-Number welding requirements shall apply. Previous revisions of the Code Case assigned every material listed in the Code Case an S-Number designation. Welding requirements for materials in the Code Case are specified based on the S-Number. The current version of the Code Case was modified to assign corresponding P-Numbers to those Code Case materials, which are also listed in ASME Code Section IX and have a P-Number designation. However, the Code Case was not modified to make clear that the Code Case requirements for welding S-Number materials are also applicable to the P-Number materials, all of which were previously listed with S-Numbers. Therefore, as written, if a user applies this Code Case and uses a P-Number material listed in the tables, it is not clear that the corresponding S-Number welding requirments apply. To clarify the application of S-Number welding requirements to P-Number materials, the NRC proposes the sixth condition as stated. This new condition would not impose any additional restrictions on the use of this Code Case from those placed on the previous revisions.

    2. ASME BPV Code, Section XI Code Cases (DG-1342/RG 1.147) Code Case N-516-4 [Supplement 7, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Underwater Welding, Section XI, Division 1.

    The previously approved revision of this Code Case, N-516-3, was conditionally accepted in RG 1.147 to require that licensees obtain NRC approval in accordance with § 50.55a(z) regarding the technique to be used in the weld repair or replacement of irradiated material underwater. The rationale for this condition was that it was known that materials subjected to high neutron fluence could not be welded without cracking (this is discussed in more detail in the next paragraph). However, the condition applied to Code Case N-516-3 did not provide any guidance on what level of neutron irradiation could be considered a threshold for weldability.

    The technical basis for imposing conditions on the welding of irradiated materials is that neutrons can generate helium atoms within the metal lattice through transmutation of various isotopes of boron and/or nickel. At high temperatures, such as those during welding, these helium atoms rapidly diffuse though the metal lattice, forming helium bubbles. In sufficient concentration, these helium atoms can cause grain boundary cracking that occurs in the fusion zones and heat affected zones during the heatup/cooldown cycle.

    In the rulemaking for the 2009-2013 Editions of the ASME Code, the NRC adopted conditions that should be applied to Section XI, Article IWA-4660 when performing underwater welding on irradiated materials. These conditions provide guidance on what level of neutron irradiation and/or helium content would require approval by the NRC because of the impact of neutron fluence on weldability. These conditions provide separate criteria for three generic classes of material: ferritic material, austenitic material other than P-No. 8 (e.g., nickel based alloys) and austenitic P-No. 8 material (e.g., stainless steel alloys). These conditions are currently located in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii). Although these conditions apply to underwater welding performed in accordance with IWA-4660, they do not apply to underwater welding performed in accordance with Code Case N-516-4.

    Therefore, the NRC proposes to approve Code Case N-516-4 with the following conditions for underwater welding. The first condition captures the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) requirement for underwater welding of ferritic materials, and states that licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with § 50.55a(z) regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on ferritic material exposed to fast neutron fluence greater than 1 × 1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV). The second condition captures the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) requirement for underwater welding of austenitic material other than P-No. 8, and states that licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with § 50.55a(z) regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on austenitic material other than P-No. 8, exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 × 1017 n/cm2 (E < 0.5 eV). The third condition captures the § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii) requirement for underwater welding of austenitic P-No. 8 material, and states that licensees must obtain NRC approval in accordance with § 50.55a(z) regarding the welding technique to be used prior to performing welding on austenitic P-No. 8 material exposed to thermal neutron fluence greater than 1 × 1017 n/cm2 (E < 0.5 eV) and measured or calculated helium concentration of the material greater than 0.1 atomic parts per million.

    Code Case N-597-3 [Supplement 5, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning Section XI.

    The NRC revised the conditions to clarify their intent. The conditions on N-597-3 are all carryovers from the previous version of this Code Case N-597-2. The first condition on Code Case N-597-3 addresses the NRC's concerns regarding how the corrosion rate and associated uncertainties will be determined when N-597-3 is applied to evaluate the wall thinning in pipes for degradation mechanisms other than flow accelerated corrosion. Therefore, the NRC is proposing a condition that requires the corrosion rate be reviewed and approved by the NRC prior to the use of the Code Case.

    The second condition on Code Case N-597-3 has two parts that allow the use of this Code Case to mitigate flow accelerated corrosion, but only if both of the requirements of the condition are met. Due to the difficulty inherent in calculating wall thinning, the first part of Condition 2 requires that the use of N-597-3 on flow-accelerated corrosion piping must be supplemented by the provisions of Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report 202L- 2, “Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program,” April 1999, which contain rigorous provisions to minimize wall thinning.

    The first part of Condition 2 (i.e., (2)(a)) on Code Case N-597-3 is identical to the first condition on Code Case N-597-2 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 15 of RG 1.147 in October 2007. The condition stated that the “Code Case must be supplemented by the provisions of EPRI Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report (NSAC) 202L- 2, “Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program” (Ref. 6), April 1999, for developing the inspection requirements, the method of predicting the rate of wall thickness loss, and the value of the predicted remaining wall thickness. As used in NSAC-202L-R2, the term “should” is to be applied as “shall” (i.e., a requirement).” When ASME revised N-597, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the first part of Condition 2. Therefore, the first part of Condition 2 would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The second part of Condition 2 (i.e., (2)(b)) on Code Case N-597-3 is identical to the second condition on Code Case N-597-2 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 15 of RG 1.147 in October 2007. The condition stated that “Components affected by flow-accelerated corrosion to which this Code Case are applied must be repaired or replaced in accordance with the construction code of record and owner's requirements or a later NRC approved edition of Section III, `Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,' of the ASME Code prior to the value of tp reaching the allowable minimum wall thickness, tmin, as specified in -3622.1(a)(1) of this Code Case. Alternatively, use of the Code Case is subject to NRC review and approval per § 50.55a(z).” When ASME revised N-597, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the second part of Condition 2. Therefore, the second part of Condition 2 would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The third condition on Code Case N-597-3 is identical to the fourth condition on Code Case N-597-2 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 15 of RG 1.147 in October 2007. The condition stated that for those components that do not require immediate repair or replacement, the rate of wall thickness loss is to be used to determine a suitable inspection frequency, so that repair or replacement occurs prior to reaching allowable minimum wall thickness. When ASME revised N-597, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the third condition. Therefore, the third condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The fourth condition on Code Case N-597-3 is updated from the sixth condition on Code Case N-597-2 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in August 2014. This condition allows the use of Code Case N-597-3 to calculate wall thinning for moderate-energy Class 2 and 3 piping (using criteria in Code Case N-513-2) for temporary acceptance (until the next refueling outage). When ASME revised N-597, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the fourth condition. Therefore, the fourth condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The fifth condition is also updated from the sixth condition on Code Case N-597-2 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 17 of RG 1.147 in August 2014. This condition prohibits the use of this Code Case in evaluating through-wall leakage in high energy piping due to the consequences and safety implications associated with pipe failure.

    Code Case N-606-2 [Supplement 2, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique for BWR CRD Housing/Stub Tube Repairs.

    The condition on Code Case N-606-2 is identical to the condition on Code Case N-606-1 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 13 of RG 1.147 in January 2004. The condition stated that “Prior to welding, an examination or verification must be performed to ensure proper preparation of the base metal, and that the surface is properly contoured so that an acceptable weld can be produced. This verification is to be required in the welding procedure.” When ASME revised N-606, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the condition. Therefore, the condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    Code Case N-638-7 [Supplement 2, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique.

    The condition on Code Case N-638-7 is identical to the condition on Code Case N-638-6 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 18 of RG 1.147 in the January 2018 final rule and states that “demonstration for ultrasonic examination of the repaired volume is required using representative samples which contain construction type flaws.” When ASME revised N-638, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the condition. Therefore, the condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    Code Case N-648-2 [Supplement 7, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examinations of Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles Section XI.

    The NRC is proposing one condition for this Code Case related to preservice inspections. The condition on N-648-2 is that this Code Case shall not be used to eliminate the preservice or inservice volumetric examination of plants with a combined operating license pursuant to 10 CFR part 52, or a plant that receives its operating license after October 22, 2015.

    The NRC staff's position regarding this Code Case is that the required preservice volumetric examinations should be performed on all vessel nozzles for comparison with volumetric examinations later, if indications of flaws are found. Eliminating the volumetric preservice or inservice examination is predicated on good operating experience for the existing fleet, which has not found any inner radius cracking in the nozzles within the scope of the code case. At this time, the new reactor designs have no inspection history or operating experience available to support eliminating the periodic volumetric examination of the nozzles in question. Use of Code Case N-648-2 would not eliminate preservice examinations for the existing fleet since all plants have already completed a preservice examination.

    Code Case N-695-1 [Supplement 6, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Section XI, Division 1.

    The NRC proposes to approve Code Case N-695-1 with the following condition. Inspectors qualified using the 0.25 root mean square (RMS) error for measuring the depths of flaws using N-695-1 are not qualified to depth-size inner diameter (ID) surface breaking flaws greater than 50 percent through-wall in dissimilar metal welds 2.1 inches or greater in thickness. When an inspector qualified using N-695-1 measures a flaw as greater than 50 percent through-wall in a dissimilar metal weld from the ID, the flaw shall be considered to have an indeterminate depth.

    Code Case N-695-1 provides alternative rules for ultrasonic inspections of dissimilar metal welds from the inner and outer surfaces. Code Case N-695 was developed to allow for inspections from the inner surface in ASME Code Section XI editions prior to 2007. However, no inspection vendor was able to meet the depth-sizing requirements of 0.125 inch RMS error. The NRC has granted relief to several licensees to allow the use of alternate depth-sizing requirements. The NRC reviewed the depth-sizing results at the Performance Demonstration Institute (PDI) for procedures able to achieve an RMS error over 0.125 inches but less than 0.25 inches. The review found that the inspectors tend to oversize small flaws and undersize deep flaws. The flaws sized by the inspectors as 50 percent though-wall or less were accurately or conservatively measured. There were, however, some instances of very large flaws being measured as significantly smaller than the true state, but they were not measured as less than 50 percent through-wall.

    Code Case N-695-1 changes the depth sizing requirements for inner-surface examinations of test blocks of 2.1 inches or greater thickness to 0.25 inches. This change is in line with the granted relief requests and with the NRC's review of the PDI test results.

    The depth-sizing capabilities of the inspections does not provide sufficient confidence in the ability of an inspector qualified using a 0.25 inch RMS error to accurately measure the depth of deep flaws. The NRC proposes a condition on Code Case N-695-1 in that any surface-connected flaw sized over 50 percent through-wall should be considered of indeterminate depth.

    Code Case N-696-1 [Supplement 6, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Qualification Requirements for Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping Examination Conducted From the Inside Surface.

    The NRC proposes to approve Code Case N-696-1 with the following condition. Inspectors qualified using the 0.25 RMS error for measuring the depths of flaws using N-696-1 are not qualified to depth-size ID surface breaking flaws greater than 50 percent through-wall in dissimilar metal welds 2.1 inches or greater in thickness. When an inspector qualified using N-696-1 measures a flaw as greater than 50 percent through-wall in a dissimilar metal weld from the ID, the flaw shall be considered to have an indeterminate depth. Code Case N-696-1 provides alternative rules for ultrasonic inspections of Supplement 2, 3 and 10 welds from the inner and outer surfaces. Code Case N-696 was developed to allow for inspections for welds from the inner surface in ASME Code Section XI editions prior to 2007. However, no inspection vendor was able to meet the depth-sizing requirements of 0.125 inch root mean square (RMS) error. The NRC staff granted relief to several licensees to allow the use of alternate depth-sizing requirements. The NRC reviewed the depth-sizing results at the PDI for procedures able to achieve an RMS error over 0.125 inches but less than 0.25 inches. The review found that the inspectors tend to oversize small flaws and undersize deep flaws. The flaws sized by the inspectors as 50 percent though-wall or less were accurately or conservatively measured. There were, however, some instances of very large flaws being measured as significantly smaller than the true state, but they were not measured as less than 50 percent through-wall.

    Code Case N-696-1 changes the depth sizing requirements for inner-surface examinations of test blocks of 2.1 inches or greater thickness to 0.25 inches. This change is consistent with the granted relief requests and with the NRC staff review of the PDI test results. The depth-sizing capabilities of the inspections does not provide sufficient confidence in the ability of an inspector qualified using a 0.25 inch RMS error to accurately measure the depth of deep flaws. Therefore, the NRC proposes a condition on Code Case N-696-1 that any surface-connected flaw sized over 50 percent through-wall should be considered of indeterminate depth.

    Code Case N-702 [Supplement 11, 2010 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Alternative Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Nozzle Inner Radius and Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, Section XI, Division 1.

    The NRC previously accepted with conditions Code Case N-702 in RG 1.147, Revision 18. For Revision 19 of RG 1.147 the NRC proposes revisions to the conditions on Code Case N-702. The original conditions in RG 1.147, Revision 17, were consistent with the established review procedure for applications for use of Code Case N-702 before August 2014 for the original 40 years of operation. The previous conditions on Code Case N-702 required licensees to prepare and submit for NRC review and approval an evaluation demonstrating the applicability of Code Case N-702 prior to the application of Code Case N-702. Subsequent reviews by the NRC of requests to utilize the provisions of Code Case N-702 show that all licensees have adequately evaluated the applicability of Code Case N-702 during the original 40 years of operation. Therefore future review by the NRC is not needed. For the period of extended operation, the application of Code Case N-702 is prohibited. Licensees that wish to use Code Case N-702 in the period of extended operation may submit relief requests based on BWRVIP-241, Appendix A, “BWR Nozzle Radii and Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds Demonstration of Compliance with the Technical Information Requirements of the License Renewal Rule (10 CFR 54.21),” approved on April 26, 2017, or plant-specific probabilistic fracture mechanics analyses. Therefore, the NRC proposes to revise the RG 1.147, Revision 17, condition to reflect these changes.

    Consistent with the safety evaluations for all prior ASME Code Case N-702 requests, a condition on visual examination is being added to clarify that the NRC is not relaxing the licensees' practice on VT-1 on nozzle inner radii.

    The revised conditions on Code Case N-702 state the following: The applicability of Code Case N-702 for the first 40 years of operation must be demonstrated by satisfying the criteria in Section 5.0 of NRC Safety Evaluation regarding BWRVIP-108 dated December 18, 2007, (ADAMS Accession No. ML073600374) or Section 5.0 of NRC Safety Evaluation regarding BWRVIP-241 dated April 19, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13071A240).

    The use of Code Case N-702 in the period of extended operation is prohibited. If VT-1 is used, it shall utilize ASME Code Case N-648-2, “Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examination of Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles, Section XI Division 1,” with the associated required conditions specified in Regulatory Guide 1.147.

    Code Case N-705 (Errata) [Supplement 11, 2010 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks.

    The NRC has already accepted Code Case N-705 in Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 16, without conditions. The revised Code Case in Supplement 11 contains only editorial changes. However, the NRC has identified an area of concern. Paragraph 1(d) of Code Case N-705 states that the evaluation period is the operational time for which the temporary acceptance criteria are satisfied (i.e., evaluation period ≤tallow) but not greater than 26 months from the initial discovery of the condition. The NRC finds the 26 months duration unacceptable. The Code Case is applicable to the temporary acceptance of degradation, which could be a through wall leak, and would permit a vessel or tank to leak coolant for 26 months without repair or replacement. The NRC finds it is unacceptable for plant safety to permit a through wall leak in vessels or tanks for 26 months without an ASME Code repair. Therefore, the NRC proposes the following condition on Code Case N-705: The ASME Code repair or replacement activity temporarily deferred under the provisions of this Code Case shall be performed during the next scheduled refueling outage. If a flaw is detected during a scheduled shutdown, an ASME code repair is required before plant restart.

    Code Case N-711-1 [Supplement 0, 2017 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Alternative Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B-F, B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2, and R-A Piping Welds.

    Code Case N-711 was first listed as unacceptable for use by the NRC in Revision 3 of RG 1.193 in October 2010. Code Case N-711-1 was created to incorporate several NRC conditions for the use of Code Case N-711. This Code Case provides requirements for determining an alternative required examination volume, which is defined as the volume of primary interest based on the postulated degradation mechanism in a particular piping weld.

    The NRC finds Code Case N-711-1 acceptable with one condition. The Code Case shall not be used to redefine the required examination volume for preservice examinations or when the postulated degradation mechanism for piping welds is primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) or crevice corrosion (CC). For PWSCC, the staff finds that the examination volume must meet the requirements of ASME Code Case N-770-1 as conditioned by § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F). For IGSCC and CC, the Code Case does not define a volume of primary interest and therefore it cannot be used for these degradation mechanisms. The Code Case requires selection of an alternative inspection location within the same risk region or category if it will improve the examination coverage of the volume of primary interest. Use of the Code Case must be identified in the licensee's 90-day post outage report of activities identifying the examination category, weld number, weld description, percent coverage and a description of limitation. The NRC determined that the Code Case provides a suitable process for determining the appropriate volume of primary interest based on the degradation mechanism postulated by the degradation mechanism analysis, except as noted in the proposed condition.

    Code Case N-754-1 [Supplement 1, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of PWR Class 1 Items.

    The first condition on Code Case N-754-1 is the same as the first condition on N-754 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 18 of RG 1.147 in January 2018. The condition stated that: “The conditions imposed on the optimized weld overlay design in the NRC safety evaluation for MRP-169, Revision 1-A (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML101620010 and ML101660468) must be satisfied.” When ASME revised N-754, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the first condition. Therefore, the first condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The second condition on Code Case N-754-1 is the same as the second condition on N-754 that was first approved by the NRC in Revision 18 of RG 1.147 in January 2018. The condition stated that: “2) The preservice and inservice inspections of the overlaid weld must satisfy 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F).” When ASME revised N-754, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the second condition. Therefore, the second condition would be retained in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

    The third condition on Code Case N-754-1 is new and states that the optimized weld overlay in this Code Case can only be installed on an Alloy 82/182 weld where the outer 25 percent of weld wall thickness does not contain indications that are greater than 1/16 inch in length or depth. The optimized weld overlay is designed with the structural support from the outer 25 percent of the existing weld metal (i.e., the base metal) intact. As such, the outer 25 percent of the weld metal needs to be free of degradation prior to the overlay installation. The Code Case is not clear with regard to the condition of the outer 25 percent of the Alloy 82/182 weld prior to the overlay installation. Therefore, the NRC proposes this condition to ensure that the outer 25 percent of the base metal (the weld) has no indications greater than 1/16 inches so that the structural integrity of the repaired weld is maintained.

    Code Case N-766-1 [Supplement 1, 2013 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of PWR Full Penetration Circumferential Nickel Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 Items.

    Code Case N-766-1 contains provisions for repairing nickel-based Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal butt welds in Class 1 piping using weld inlay and onlay. The NRC notes that the Code Case provides adequate requirements on the design, installation, pressure testing, and examinations of the inlay and onlay. The NRC finds that the weld inlay and onlay using the Code Case provides reasonable assurance that the structural integrity of the repaired pipe will be maintained. However, certain provisions of the Code Case are inadequate and therefore the NRC proposes five conditions. The NRC staff notes that the preservice and inservice inspection requirements of inlay and onlay are specified in Code Case N-770-1 as stated in Section 3(e) of Code Case N-766-1.

    The first condition on Code Case N-766-1 is new and prohibits the reduction of preservice and inservice inspection requirements specified by this Code Case for inlays or onlays applied to Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal welds, which contain an axial indication that has a depth of more than 25 percent of the pipe wall thickness and a length of more than half axial width of the dissimilar metal weld, or a circumferential indication that has a depth of more than 25 percent of the pipe wall thickness and a length of more than 20 percent of the circumference of the pipe. Paragraph 1(c)(1) of the Code Case states that:

    . . . Indications detected in the examination of 3(b)(1) that exceed the acceptance standards of IWB-3514 shall be corrected in accordance with the defect removal requirements of IWA-4000. Alternatively, indications that do not meet the acceptance standards of IWB-3514 may be accepted by analytical evaluation in accordance with IWB-3600 . . .

    This alternative would allow a flaw with a maximum depth of 75 percent through wall to remain in service in accordance with the ASME Code, Section XI, IWB-3643. Even if the inlay or onlay will isolate the dissimilar metal weld from the reactor coolant to minimize the potential for stress corrosion cracking, the NRC finds that having a 75 percent flaw in the Alloy 82/182 weld does not provide reasonable assurance of the structural integrity of the pipe. The NRC finds that the indication in the Alloy 82/182 weld needs to be limited in size to ensure structural integrity of the weld.

    The second condition on Code Case N-766-1 is new and modifies the Code Case to require that pipe with any thickness of inlay or onlay must be evaluated for weld shrinkage, pipe system flexibility, and additional weight of the inlay or onlay. Paragraph 2(e) of the Code Case states that:

    . . . If the inlay or onlay deposited in accordance with this Case is thicker than 1/8t, where t is the original nominal DMW [Dissimilar Metal Weld] thickness, the effects of any change in applied loads, as a result of weld shrinkage from the entire inlay or onlay, on other items in the piping system (e.g., support loads and clearances, nozzle loads, and changes in system flexibility and weight due to the inlay or onlay) shall be evaluated. Existing flaws previously accepted by analytical evaluation shall be evaluated in accordance with IWB-3640 . . .

    The NRC finds that a pipe with any thickness of inlay or onlay must be evaluated for weld shrinkage, pipe system flexibility, and additional weight of the inlay or onlay.

    The third condition on Code Case N-766-1 is new. The third condition sets re-examination requirements for inlay or onlay when applied to an Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal weld with any indication that the weld exceeds the acceptance standards of IWB-3514 and is accepted for continued service in accordance with IWB-3132.3 or IWB-3142.4. This condition states that the subject weld must be inspected in three successive examinations after the installation of the inlay or onlay. The NRC has concerns regarding the fact that the Code Case permits indications exceeding IWB-3514 to remain in service after inlay or onlay installation, based on analytical evaluation of IWB-3600. The IWB-2420 requires three successive examinations for indications that are permitted to remain in service per IWB-3600. The Code Case does not discuss the three successive examinations. If an inlay or onlay is applied to an Alloy 82/182 dissimilar metal weld that contains an indication that exceeds the acceptance standards of IWB-3514 and is accepted for continued service in accordance with IWB-3132.3 or IWB-3142.4, the subject weld must be inspected in three successive examinations after inlay or onlay installation. The NRC proposes this condition to ensure that the three successive examinations will be performed.

    The fourth condition on Code CaseN-766-1 is new and prohibits an inlay or onlay with detectable subsurface indication discovered by eddy current testing in the acceptance examinations from remaining in service. Operational experience has shown that subsurface flaws on alloy 52 welds for upper heads may be very near the surface. However, these flaws are undetectable by liquid dye penetrant, as there are no surface breaking aspects during initial construction. Nevertheless, in multiple cases, after a plant goes through one or two cycles of operation, these defects become exposed to the primary coolant. The exposure of these subsurface defects to primary coolant challenges the effectiveness of the alloy 52 weld mitigation of only 3mm in total thickness. In the upper head scenario, these welds are inspected each outage. In order to allow the extension of the inspection frequency to that defined by § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F), the NRC found that all detectable subsurface indications by eddy current examination should be removed from the alloy 52 weld layer.

    The fifth condition on Code CaseN-766-1 is new and requires that the flaw analysis of paragraph 2(d) of the Code Case shall also consider primary water stress corrosion cracking growth in the circumferential and axial directions, in accordance with IWB-3640. The postulated flaw evaluation in the Code Case only requires a fatigue analysis. Conservative generic analysis by the NRC has raised the concern that a PWSCC could potentially grow through the inner alloy 52 weld layer and into the highly susceptible alloy 82/182 weld material, to a depth of 75 percent through-wall, within the period of reexamination frequency required by § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F). Therefore, users of this Code Case will verify, for each weld, that a primary water stress corrosion crack will not reach a depth of 75 percent through-wall within the required re-inspection interval due to PWSCC.

    Code Case N-824 [Supplement 11, 2010 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Piping Welds From the Outside Surface, Section XI, Division 1.

    Code Case N-824 is a new Code Case for the examination of cast austenitic piping welds from the outside surface. The NRC, using NUREG/CR-6933 and NUREG/CR-7122, determined that inspections of cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS) materials are very challenging, and sufficient technical basis exists to condition the Code Case to bring the Code Case into agreement with the NUREG/CR reports. The NUREG/CR reports also show that CASS materials produce high levels of coherent noise. The noise signals can be confusing and mask flaw indications.

    The use of dual element phased-array search units showed the most promise in obtaining meaningful responses from flaws. For this reason, the NRC is proposing to add a condition to require the use of dual, transmit-receive, refracted longitudinal wave, multi-element phased array search units when utilizing N-824 for the examination of CASS components.

    The optimum inspection frequencies for examining CASS components of various thicknesses are described in NUREG/CR-6933 and NUREG/CR-7122. For this reason, the NRC is proposing to add a condition to require that ultrasonic examinations performed to implement ASME BPV Code Case N-824 on piping greater than 1.6 inches thick shall use a phased array search unit with a center frequency of 500 kHz with a tolerance of +/− 20 percent.

    The NUREG/CR-6933 shows that the grain structure of CASS can reduce the effectiveness of some inspection angles, namely angles including, but not limited to, 30 to 55 degrees with a maximum increment of 5 degrees. Because the NRC is requiring the use of a phased array search unit, the NRC finds that the use of the phased array search unit must be limited so that the unit is used at inspection angles that would provide acceptable results. For this reason, the NRC is adding a condition to require that ultrasonic examinations performed to implement ASME BPV Code Case N-824 shall use a phased array search unit that produce angles including, but not limited to, 30 to 55 degrees with a maximum increment of 5 degrees. Therefore, the NRC finds Code Case N-824 acceptable with the following poroposed conditions: (1) Instead of Paragraph 1(c)(1)(-c)(-2), licensees shall use a phased array search unit with a center frequency of 500 kHz with a tolerance of ± 20 percent, and (2) instead of Paragraph 1(c)(1)(-d), the phased array search unit must produce angles including, but not limited to, 30 to 55 degrees with a maximum increment of 5 degrees.

    Existing regulations in § 50.55a paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(E) and (b)(2)(xxxvii) discuss N-824 and the associated conditions. Because N-824 would now be discussed in RG 1.147, the existing requirements are redundant. These paragraphs would be removed.

    Code Case N-829 [Supplement 0, 2013 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Austenitic Stainless Steel Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique.

    Code Case N-829 is a new Code Case for the use of automatic or machine GTAW temper bead technique for the repair of stainless steel cladding and nickel-base cladding without the specified preheat or postweld heat treatment in Section XI, Paragraph IWA-4411.

    The NRC finds the Code Case acceptable on the condition that the provisions of Code Case N-829, paragraph 3(e)(2) or 3(e)(3) may only be used when it is impractical to use the interpass temperature measurement methods described in 3(e)(1), such as in situations where the weldment area is inaccessible (e.g., internal bore welding) or when there are extenuating radiological conditions. The NRC has determined that interpass temperature measurement is critical to obtaining acceptable corrosion resistance and/or notch toughness in a weld. Only in areas which are totally inaccessible to temperature measurement devices or when there are extenuating radiological conditions shall alternate methods be allowed such as the calculation method from section 3(e)(2) in ASME Code Case N-829 or the weld coupon test method shown in section 3(e)(3) in ASME Code Case N-829.

    Code Case N-830 [Supplement 7, 2013 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Direct Use of Master Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels.

    Code Case N-830 is a new Code Case introduced in the 2013 Edition of the ASME Code. This Code Case outlines the use of a material specific master curve as an alternative fracture toughness curve for crack initiation, KIC, in Section XI, Division 1, Appendices A and G, for Class 1 pressure retaining materials, other than bolting.

    The NRC finds the Code Case acceptable with one condition to prohibit the use of the provision in Paragraph (f) of the Code Case that allows for the use of an alternative to limiting the lower shelf of the 95 percent lower tolerance bound Master Curve toughness, KJC-lower 95 %, to a value consistent with the current KIC curve. Code Case N-830 contains provisions for using the KJC-lower 95 % curve and the master curve-based reference temperature To as an alternative to the KIC curve and the nil-ductility transition reference temperature RTNDT in Appendices A and G of the ASME Code, Section XI. To is determined in accordance with ASTM International Standard E 1921, “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range,” from direct fracture toughness testing data. The RTNDT is determined in accordance with ASME Code, Section III, NB-2330, “Test Requirements and Acceptance Standards,” from indirect Charpy V-notch testing data, and RG 1.99, Revision 2, “Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials.” Considering the entire test data at a wide range of T-RTNDT (−400 °F to 100 °F), the NRC found that the current KIC curve also represents approximately a 95 percent lower tolerance bound for the data. Thus, using KJC-lower 95 % curve based on the Master Curve is acceptable. However, since Paragraph (f) provides a significant deviation from the KJC-lower 95 % curve for (T-To) below −115 °F in a non-conservative manner without justification, the NRC determined that Paragraph (f) of N-830 must not be applied when using N-830.

    Code Case N-831 [Supplement 0, 2017 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe.

    Code Case N-831 is a new Code Case, which provides an alternative to radiographic testing when it is required by the construction code for Section Xl repair/replacement activities. This Code Case describes the requirements for inspecting ferritic welds for fabrication flaws using Ultrasonic Testing (UT) as an alternative to the current requirements to use radiography. The Code Case describes the scanning methods, recordkeeping and performance demonstration qualification requirements for the ultrasonic procedures, equipment, and personnel.

    The NRC finds the Code Case acceptable with the condition that it is prohibited for use in new reactor construction. History has shown that the combined use of radiographic testing for weld fabrication examinations followed by the use of UT for pre-service inspections (PSI) and ISI ensures that workmanship is maintained (with radiographic testing) while potentially critical planar fabrication flaws are not put into service (with UT). Until studies are completed that demonstrate the ability of UT to replace radiographic testing (repair/replacement activity), the NRC will not generically allow the substitute of UT in lieu of radiographic testing for weld fabrication examinations. In addition, ultrasonic examinations are not equivalent to radiographic examinations as they use different physical mechanisms to detect and characterize discontinuities. These differences in physical mechanisms result in several key differences in sensitivity and discrimination capability. As a result of these differences, as well as in consideration of the inherent strengths of each of the methods, the two methods are not considered to be interchangeable, but are considered complementary. Therefore, the NRC determined that this Code Case is not acceptable for use on new reactor construction.

    Code Case N-838 [Supplement 2, 2015 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Section XI, Division 1.

    The NRC proposes to approve Code Case N-838 with the following condition: Code Case N-838 shall not be used to evaluate flaws in cast austenitic stainless steel piping where the delta ferrite content exceeds 25 percent.

    Code Case N-838 contains provisions for performing a postulated flaw tolerance evaluation of ASME Class 1 and 2 CASS piping with delta ferrite exceeding 20 percent. The Code Case provides a recommended target flaw size for the qualification of nondestructive examination methods, along with an approach that may be used to justify a larger target flaw size, if needed. The Code Case is intended for the flaw tolerance evaluation of postulated flaws in CASS base metal adjacent to welds, in conjunction with license renewal commitments. The NRC notes that the Code Case is limited in application and provides restrictions so that the Code Case will not be misused. For example, the Code Case is applicable to portions of Class 1 and 2 piping comprised of SA-351 statically- or centrifugally-cast Grades CF3, CF3A, CF3M, CF8, CF8A and CF8M base metal with delta ferrite exceeding 20 percent and niobium or columbium content not greater than 0.2 weight percent. This Code Case is limited to be applied to thermally aged CASS material types as listed with normal operating temperatures between 500 °F and 662 °F. The Code Case is not applicable for evaluation of detected flaws. Section 3 of the Code Case provides specific analytical evaluation procedures for the pipe mean-radius-to-thickness ratio greater than 10 and for those with a ratio less than 10. Tables 1 through 4 provide the maximum tolerable flaw depth-to-thickness ratio for circumference and axial flaws.

    However, the NRC finds paragraph 3(c) of the Code Case to be inadequate. Paragraph 3(c) specifies that for delta ferrite exceeding 25 percent, or pipe mean radius-to-thickness ratio, R/t, exceeding 10, the flaw tolerance evaluation shall be performed except that representative data shall be used to determine the maximum tolerable flaw depths applicable to the CASS base metal and R/t in lieu of Tables 1 through 4 of the Code Case.

    The NRC notes that there are insufficient fracture toughness data for cast austenitic stainless steel that is greater than 25 percent in the open source literature. As such, the NRC needs to review flaw tolerance evaluations to ensure that they are performed with adequate conservatism. Therefore, the NRC proposes a condition to prohibit the use of this Code Case where delta ferrite in cast austenitic stainless steel piping exceeds 25 percent.

    Code Case N-843 [Supplement 4, 2013 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements Following Repairs or Replacements for Class 1 Piping between the First and Second Inspection Isolation Valves, Section XI, Division 1.

    Code Case N-843 is consistent with alternatives that have been granted by the NRC. The NRC is concerned about return lines being included that could allow significantly lower pressures to be used on Class 1 portions of return lines. Therefore, the NRC proposes a condition to ensure the injection lines are tested at the highest pressure of the line's intended safety function. If the portions of the system requiring pressure testing are associated with more than one safety function, the pressure test and visual examination VT-2 shall be performed during a test conducted at the higher of the operating pressures for the respective system safety functions.

    Code Case N-849 [Supplement 7, 2013 Edition]

    Type: New.

    Title: In Situ VT-3 Examination of Removable Core Support Structures Without Removal.

    Code Case N-849 is a new Code Case introduced in the 2013 Edition of ASME Code. This Code Case is meant to provide guidelines for allowing the VT-3 inspection requirements of Table IWB-2500-1 for preservice or inservice inspections of the core support structures to be performed without the removal of the core support structure. The NRC finds the Code Case acceptable with two proposed conditions.

    The first condition on Code Case N-849 limits the use of the Code Case to plants that are designed with accessible core support structures to allow for in situ inspection. Code Case N-849 allows the performance of VT-3 preservice or inservice visual examinations of removable core support structures in situ using a remote examination system. A provision of the Code Case is that all surfaces accessible for examination when the structure is removed shall be accessible when the structure is in situ, except for load bearing and contact surfaces, which would only be inspected when the core barrel is removed. Designs for new reactors, such as small modular reactors, may include accessibility of the annulus between the core barrel and the reactor vessel. Unlike new reactor designs, currently operating plants were not designed to allow in situ VT-3 examinations. There are no industry survey results of the current fleet to provide an evaluation of operating plant inspection findings. Therefore, applicability to the designs of currently operating plants has not been satisfactorily addressed.

    The second condition on Code Case N-849 requires that prior to initial plant startup, the VT-3 preservice examination shall be performed with the core support structure removed, as required by ASME Section XI, IWB-2500-1, and shall include all surfaces that are accessible when the core support structure is removed, including all load bearing and contact surfaces. The NRC has concerns that a preservice examination would not be performed on the load bearing and contact surfaces even though the surfaces would be accessible prior to installing the core support structure. There is also no evidence that the in situ examination will achieve the same coverage as the examination with the core support structure removed.

    3. ASME Operation and Maintenance Code Cases (DG-1343/RG 1.192) Code Case OMN-1 Revision 2 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Revised.

    Title: Alternative Rules for Preservice and Inservice Testing of Active Electric Motor-Operated Valve Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-1, Revision 2 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-1 Revision 1 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-1, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-3 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Requirements for Safety Significance Categorization of Components Using Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of LWR Power Plants.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-3 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-3 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-3, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-4 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Requirements for Risk Insights for Inservice Testing of Check Valves at LWR Power Plants.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-4 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-4 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-4, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-9 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Use of a Pump Curve for Testing.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-9 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-9 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-9, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-12 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Alternative Requirements for Inservice Testing Using Risk Insights for Pneumatically and Hydraulically Operated Valve Assemblies in Light-Water Reactor Power Plants (OM-Code 1998, Subsection ISTC).

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-12 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-12 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-12, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-18 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Alternate Testing Requirements for Pumps Tested Quarterly Within ±20% of Design Flow.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-18 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-18 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-18, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-19 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Alternative Upper Limit for the Comprehensive Pump Test.

    The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-19 [2017 Edition] are identical to the conditions on OMN-19 [2012 Edition] that were approved by the NRC in Revision 2 of RG 1.192 in January 2018. When ASME revised OMN-19, the code case was not modified in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 3 of RG 1.192.

    Code Case OMN-20 [2017 Edition]

    Type: Reaffirmed.

    Title: Inservice Test Frequency.

    This Code Case is applicable to the editions and addenda of the OM Code listed in § 50.55a(a)(1)(iv).

    With the acceptance of Code Case OMN-20 in RG 1.192, Revision 3, paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(G) and (b)(3)(x) in § 50.55a accepting Code Case OMN-20 are unnecessary and would be removed with this proposed rule.

    C. ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use (DG-1344/RG 1.193)

    The ASME Code Cases that are currently issued by the ASME but not approved for generic use by the NRC are listed in RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases not Approved for Use.” In addition to ASME Code Cases that the NRC has found to be technically or programmatically unacceptable, RG 1.193 includes Code Cases on reactor designs for high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and liquid metal reactors, reactor designs not currently licensed by the NRC, and certain requirements in Section III, Division 2, for submerged spent fuel waste casks, that are not endorsed by the NRC. Regulatory Guide 1.193 complements RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192. It should be noted that the NRC is not proposing to adopt any of the Code Cases listed in RG 1.193. However, comments have been submitted in the past on certain Code Cases listed in RG 1.193 where the commenter believed that additional technical information was available that might not have been considered by the NRC in its determination to not approve the use of these Code Cases. While the NRC will consider those comments, the NRC is not requesting comment on RG 1.193 at this time. Any changes in the NRC's non-approval of such Code Cases will be the subject of an additional opportunity for public comment.

    IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following paragraphs in § 50.55a would be revised as follows:

    Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E)

    This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(E).

    Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(G)

    This proposed rule would remove paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(G).

    Paragraph (a)(3)

    This proposed rule would include a condition in paragraph (a)(3) stating that the Code Cases listed in RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192 may be applied with the specified conditions when implementing the editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes incorporated by reference in § 50.55a.

    Paragraph (a)(3)(i)

    This proposed rule would revise the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.84, Revision 37,” by removing “Revision 37” and adding in its place “Revision 38.”

    Paragraph (a)(3)(ii)

    This proposed rule would revise the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.147, Revision 18,” by removing “Revision 18” and adding in its place “Revision 19.”

    Paragraph (a)(3)(iii)

    This proposed rule would revise the reference to “NRC Regulatory Guide 1.192, Revision 2,” by removing “Revision 2” and adding in its place “Revision 3.”

    Paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii)

    This proposed rule would remove paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii).

    Paragraph (b)(3)(x)

    This proposed rule would remove and reserve paragraph (b)(3)(x).

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

    VI. Regulatory Analysis

    The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC. The NRC requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES caption of this document.

    VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    The provisions in this proposed rule would allow licensees and applicants to voluntarily apply NRC-approved Code Cases, sometimes with NRC-specified conditions. The approved Code Cases are listed in three RGs that are proposed to be incorporated by reference into § 50.55a. An applicant's or a licensee's voluntary application of an approved Code Case does not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as there is no imposition of a new requirement or new position.

    Similarly, voluntary application of an approved Code Case by a 10 CFR part 52 applicant or licensee does not represent NRC imposition of a requirement or action, which is inconsistent with any issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. For these reasons, the NRC finds that this proposed rule does not involve any provisions requiring the preparation of a backfit analysis or documentation demonstrating that one or more of the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 are met.

    VIII. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    IX. Environmental Assessment and Proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact

    The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

    The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant effect on the quality of the human environment from this action. Interested parties should note, however, that comments on any aspect of this environmental assessment may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    As voluntary alternatives to the ASME Code, NRC-approved Code Cases provide an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the probability or consequences of accidents is not changed. There are also no significant, non-radiological impacts associated with this action because no changes would be made affecting non-radiological plant effluents and because no changes would be made in activities that would adversely affect the environment. The determination of this environmental assessment is that there will be no significant offsite impact to the public from this action.

    X. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    This proposed rule contains new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of the information collections.

    Type of submission, new or revision: Revision.

    The title of the information collection: Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization.

    Facilities: Updates to Incorporation by Reference and Regulatory Guides.

    The form number if applicable: Not applicable.

    How often the collection is required: On occasion.

    Who will be required or asked to report: Operating power reactor licensees and applicants for power reactors under construction.

    An estimate of the number of annual responses: −24 (reduction).

    The estimated number of annual respondents: −24 (reduction).

    An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: −9,120 hours (reduction of reporting hours.)

    Abstract: This proposed rule is the latest in a series of rulemakings that incorporate by reference the latest versions of several Regulatory Guides identifying new and revised unconditionally or conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases that are approved for use. The incorporation by reference of these Code Cases will reduce the number of alternative requests submitted by licensees under § 50.55a(z) by an estimated 24 requests annually.

    The NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues:

    1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?

    2. Is the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection accurate?

    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

    4. How can the burden of the proposed information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

    A copy of the OMB clearance package and proposed rule is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18099A046 or may be viewed free of charge at the NRC's PDR, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. You may obtain information and comment submissions related to the OMB clearance package by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0024.

    You may submit comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the four issues, by the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0024.

    Mail comments to: Information Services Branch, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T-2F43, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0011) Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email: [email protected]

    Submit comments by September 17, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    Public Protection Notification

    The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC is continuing to use ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, which are ASME-approved voluntary alternatives to compliance with various provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. The NRC's approval of the ASME Code Cases is accomplished by amending the NRC's regulations to incorporate by reference the latest revisions of the following, which are the subject of this rulemaking, into § 50.55a: RG 1.84, Revision 38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; and RG 1.192, Revision 3. These RGs list the ASME Code Cases that the NRC has approved for use. The ASME Code Cases are national consensus standards as defined in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and OMB Circular A-119. The ASME Code Cases constitute voluntary consensus standards, in which all interested parties (including the NRC and licensees of nuclear power plants) participate. The NRC invites comment on the applicability and use of other standards.

    XII. Incorporation by Reference

    The NRC proposes to incorporate by reference three NRC RGs that list new and revised ASME Code Cases that the NRC has approved as voluntary alternatives to certain provisions of NRC-required Editions and Addenda of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code. The draft regulatory guides DG-1345, DG-1342, and DG-1343 will correspond to final RG 1.84, Revision 38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; and RG 1.192, Revision 3, respectively. A summary of the material the NRC proposes to incorporate by reference is provided in the “Discussion” section of this document.

    The NRC is required to obtain approval for incorporation by reference from the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) as set forth in 1 CFR part 51. The OFR regulations require an agency to include in a proposed rule a discussion of the ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties. The discussion in this section complies with the requirement for proposed rules as set forth in 1 CFR 51.5(a)(1).

    The NRC considers “interested parties” to include all potential NRC stakeholders, not only the individuals and entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. These NRC stakeholders are not a homogenous group, so the considerations for determining “reasonable availability” vary by class of interested parties. The NRC identifies six classes of interested parties with regard to the material to be incorporated by reference in an NRC rule:

    • Individuals and small entities regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. This class includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals, and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference. In this context, “small entities” has the same meaning as set out in 10 CFR 2.810.

    • Large entities otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. This class includes applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals, and who are subject to the material to be incorporated by reference. In this context, a “large entity” is one that does not qualify as a “small entity” under 10 CFR 2.810.

    • Non-governmental organizations with institutional interests in the matters regulated by the NRC.

    • Other Federal agencies, states, local governmental bodies (within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.315(c)).

    • Federally-recognized and State-recognized Indian tribes.

    • Members of the general public (i.e., individual, unaffiliated members of the public who are not regulated or otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight) and who need access to the materials that the NRC proposes to incorporate by reference in order to participate in the rulemaking.

    The three draft RGs that the NRC proposes to incorporate by reference in this proposed rule are available without cost and can be read online, downloaded, or viewed, by appointment, at the NRC Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000; email: [email protected]. The final RGs, if approved by the OFR for incorporation by reference, will also be available for inspection at the OFR, as described in 10 CFR 50.55a(a).

    Because access to the three draft regulatory guides, and eventually, the final regulatory guides, are available in various forms at no cost, the NRC determines that the three draft regulatory guides, DG-1345, DG-1342, and DG-1343, and final regulatory guides 1.84, Revision 38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; and RG 1.192, Revision 3, once approved by the OFR for incorporation by reference, are reasonably available to all interested parties.

    XIII. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following tables are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated. Throughout the development of this rule, the NRC may post documents related to this rule, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at: http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0024. The Federal rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0024); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    Table III—Rulemaking Related Documents Document title ADAMS accession No./
  • Federal Register citation
  • Federal Register notice—“Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM Code Cases,” July 8, 2003 68 FR 40469. Federal Register Notice—“Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels,” December 19, 1995 60 FR 65456. Final Safety Evaluation for Nuclear Energy Institute “Topical Report Materials Reliability Program (MRP): Technical Basis for Preemptive Weld Overlays for Alloy 82/182 Butt Welds in Pressurized Water Reactors (MRP-169) Revision 1-A,” August 9, 2010 ML101620010.
  • ML101660468.
  • EPRI Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report 202L-2, “Recommendations for an Effective Flow Accelerated Corrosion Program,” April 1999 Available for purchase. ASTM International Standard E 1921, “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range,” Available for purchase. ASME Code, Section III, NB-2330, “Test Requirements and Acceptance Standards,” Available for purchase. Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, “Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials,” ML102310298. Federal Register notice—“Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code Cases” dated January 17, 2018 83 FR 2331. RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not Approved for Use,” Revision 6. (DG-1344) ML18114A227. Draft Regulatory Analysis ML18099A054.
    Documents Proposed To Be Incorporated by Reference

    The NRC proposes to incorporate by reference three NRC RGs that list new and revised ASME Code Cases that the NRC has approved as voluntary alternatives to certain provisions of NRC-required Editions and Addenda of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code.

    Table IV—Draft Regulatory Guides Proposed to be Incorporated by Reference in 10 CFR 50.55a Document title ADAMS accession No./
  • Federal Register citation
  • RG 1.84, “Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III,” Revision 38. (DG-1345) ML18114A228. RG 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” Revision 19. (DG-1342) ML18114A225. RG 1.192, “Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code,” Revision 3. (DG-1343) ML18114A226.
    Code Cases for Approval in This Proposed Rule

    The ASME BPV Code Cases that the NRC is proposing to approve as alternatives to certain provisions of the ASME BPV Code, as set forth in Table V, are being made available by the ASME for read-only access during the public comment period on the http://go.asme.org/NRC-ASME-CC.

    The ASME OM Code Cases that the NRC is proposing to approve as alternatives to certain provisions of the ASME OM Code, as set forth in Table V, are being made available for read-only access during the public comment period by the ASME on the http://go.asme.org/NRC-ASME-CC.

    The ASME is making the Code Cases listed in Table V available for limited, read-only access at the request of the NRC. The NRC believes that stakeholders need to be able to read these Code Cases in order to provide meaningful comment on the three RGs (listed in Table IV) that the NRC is proposing to incorporate by reference into § 50.55a. It is the NRC's position that the listed Code Cases, as modified by any conditions contained in the three RGs and thus serving as alternatives to requirements in § 50.55a, are legally-binding regulatory requirements. An applicant or licensee must comply with a listed Code Case and any conditions to be within the scope of the NRC's approval of the Code Case as a voluntary alternative for use. These requirements cannot be fully understood without knowledge of the Code Case to which the proposed condition applies, and to this end, the NRC has requested that ASME provide limited, read-only access to the Code Cases in order to facilitate meaningful public comment.

    Table V—ASME Code Cases Proposed for NRC Approval Code case No. Supplement Title Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III N-60-6 11 (2010 Edition) Material for Core Support Structures, Section III, Division 1 SUPP 11. N-71-19 0 (2013 Edition) Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated by Welding, Section III, Division 1. N-249-15 7 (2013 Edition) Additional Materials for Subsection NF, Classes 1, 2, 3, and MC Supports Fabricated Without Welding, Section III, Division 1. N-284-4 11 (2010 Edition) Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods, Class MC, TC, and SC Construction Section III, Divisions 1 and 3. N-520-6 1 (2013 Edition) Alternative Rules for Renewal of Active or Expired N-type Certificates for Plants Not in Active Construction, Section III, Division 1. N-801-1 11 (2010 Edition) Rules for Repair of N-Stamped Class 1, 2, and 3 Components Section III, Division 1. N-822-2 7 (2013 Edition) Application of the ASME Certification Mark Section III, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 5. N-833 1 (2013 Edition) Minimum Non-prestressed Reinforcement in the Containment Base Mat or Slab Required for Concrete Crack Control, Section III, Division 2. N-834 3 (2013 Edition) ASTM A988/A988M-11 UNS S31603, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components, Section III, Division 1. N-836 3 (2013 Edition) Heat Exchanger Tube Mechanical Plugging, Class 1, Section III, Division 1. N-841 4 (2013 Edition) Exemptions to Mandatory Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) of SA-738 Grade B for Class MC Applications, Section III, Division 1. N-844 5 (2013 Edition) Alternatives to the Requirements of NB-4250(c), Section III, Division 1. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI N-513-4 6 (2013 Edition) Evaluation of Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping, Section XI, Division 1. N-516-4 7 (2013 Edition) Underwater Welding, Section XI, Division 1. N-528-1 5 (1998 Edition) Purchase, Exchange, or Transfer of Material Between Nuclear Plant Sites Section XI, Division 1. N-597-3 5 (2013 Edition) Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, Division 1. N-606-2 2 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique for BWR CRD Housing/Stub Tube Repairs, Section XI, Division 1. N-638-7 2 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique. N-648-2 7 (2013 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Inner Radius Examinations of Class 1 Reactor Vessel Nozzles, Section XI, Division 1. N-661-3 6 (2015 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Wall Thickness Restoration of Class 2 and 3 Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service, Section XI, Division 1. N-695-1 0 (2015 Edition) Qualification Requirements for Dissimilar Metal Piping Welds Section XI, Division 1. N-696-1 6 (2013 Edition) Qualification Requirements for Mandatory Appendix VIII Piping Examination Conducted from the Inside Surface, Section XI, Division 1. N-702 12 (2001 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Nozzle Inner Radius and Nozzle-to-Shell Welds, Section XI, Division 1. N-705(Errata) 11 (2010 Edition) Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Degradation in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Vessels and Tanks, Section XI, Division 1. N-711-1 0 (2017 Edition) Alternative Examination Coverage Requirements for Examination Category B-F, B-J, C-F-1, C-F-2, and R-A Piping Welds. N-754-1 1 (2013 Edition) Optimized Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Mitigation of PWR Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. N-762-1 3 (2013 Edition) Temper Bead Procedure Qualification Requirements for Repair/Replacement Activities without Postweld Heat Treatment, Section XI, Division 1. N-766-1 1 (2013 Edition) Nickel Alloy Reactor Coolant Inlay and Onlay for Mitigation of PWR Full Penetration Circumferential Nickel Alloy Dissimilar Metal Welds in Class 1 Items, Section XI, Division 1. N-789-2 5 (2015 Edition) Alternative Requirements for Pad Reinforcement of Class 2 and 3 Moderate Energy Carbon Steel Piping for Raw Water Service. N-823-1 4 (2013 Edition) Visual Examination Section XI, Division 1. N-824 11 (2010 Edition) Ultrasonic Examination of Cast Austenitic Piping Welds From the Outside Surface Section XI, Division 1. N-829 0 (2013 Edition) Austenitic Stainless Steel Cladding and Nickel Base Cladding Using Ambient Temperature Machine GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1. N-830 7 (2013 Edition) Direct Use of Master Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI. N-831 0 (2017 Edition) Ultrasonic Examination in Lieu of Radiography for Welds in Ferritic Pipe. N-838 2 (2015 Edition) Flaw Tolerance Evaluation of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, Section XI, Division 1. N-839 7 (2013 Edition) Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature SMAW Temper Bead Technique Section XI, Division 1. N-842 4 (2013 Edition) Alternative Inspection Program for Longer Fuel Cycles Section XI, Division 1. N-843 4 (2013 Edition) Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements Following Repairs or Replacements for Class 1 Piping between the First and Second Injection Isolation Valves, Section XI, Division 1. N-849 7 (2013 Edition) In situ VT-3 Examination of Removable Core Support Structures Without Removal, Section XI. N-853 6 (2015 Edition) PWR Class 1 Primary Piping Alloy 600 Full Penetration Branch Connection Weld Metal Buildup for Material Susceptible to Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking, Section XI, Division 1. N-854 1 (2015 Edition) Alternative Pressure Testing Requirements for Class 2 and 3 Components Connected to the Class 1 Boundary, Section XI, Division 1. OM Code Code case No. Edition 4 Title OMN-16 Revision 2 2017 Edition Use of a Pump Curve for Testing. OMN-21 2017 Edition Alternative Requirements for Adjusting Hydraulic Parameters to Specified Reference Points. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part50

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Education, Fire prevention, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.

    4 The column labelled “Edition” in this table refers to the point in time a Code Case was issued. For example, an entry associated with the 2017 Edition means the Code Case was issued at the same time as the 2017 Edition of the code.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC proposes to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 50:

    PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 122, 147, 149, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2138, 2152, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 306 (42 U.S.C. 10226); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; Sec. 109, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 783.

    2. In § 50.55a: a. Remove and reserve paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(E) and (G); b. Revise paragraph (a)(3) introductory text; c. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), remove the phrase “Revision 37” and add in its place the phrase “Revision 38”; d. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), remove the phrase “Revision 18” and add in its place the phrase “Revision 19”; e. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), remove the phrase “Revision 2” and add in its place the phrase “Revision 3”; f. Remove paragraph (b)(2)(xxxvii); and g. Remove and reserve paragraph (b)(3)(x).

    The revision reads as follows:

    § 50.55a Codes and standards.

    (3) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 1-800-397-4209; email: [email protected]; http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/. The use of Code Cases listed in the NRC regulatory guides in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section is acceptable with the specified conditions in those guides when implementing the editions and addenda of the ASME BPV Code and ASME OM Code incorporated by reference in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of July, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Michele G. Evans, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17650 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0710; Product Identifier 2018-NM-079-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by in-service findings that a cotter pin at the main fitting joint of the nose landing gear (NLG) retraction actuator to the NLG strut showed evidence of shearing after a NLG retraction-extension cycling. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, a general visual inspection for damage of a certain cotter pin present on certain configurations of the NLG strut assembly and for the modification number shown on the identification plate for the NLG strut, and modification of the NLG retraction actuator hardware on any damaged NLG strut assembly. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0710; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531; 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-2018-0710; Product Identifier 2018-NM-079-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-05, dated January 23, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been in-service findings whereby the cotter pin at the retraction actuator to nose landing gear (NLG) strut main fitting was observed to be damaged after a NLG retraction-extension cycling. This condition could lead to a loss of hardware and result in an actuator disconnect resulting in a failure to retract or extend, or in an undamped freefall of the NLG [which could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing].

    This AD mandates a revision to the approved maintenance schedule. This AD also mandates a visual inspection of the cotter pin for certain configurations of NLG strut assembly, and if found damaged, the incorporation of a modification which introduces a new castellated nut, spacer, end plate and sleeve to the NLG retraction actuator to main fitting joint.

    The required actions also include a prohibition on accomplishing Liebherr-Aerospace Service Bulletin 1285A-32-07 at any revision level on the NLG strut assemblies of any Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 or BD-700-1A11 airplane in order to prevent the installation of the affected configuration of the NLG strut assembly. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0710.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for a general visual inspection for damage of the cotter pin retaining the bolt that secures the main fitting joint of the NLG retraction actuator to the NLG strut and for the modification number shown on the identification plate for the NLG strut, and modifying the attachment hardware that secures the NLG retraction actuator to the NLG strut. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-022, Revision 2, dated November 6, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-035, Revision 2, dated November 6, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5011, Revision 2, dated November 6, 2017.

    • Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6011, Revision 2, dated November 6, 2017.

    Bombardier has issued the following service information, which identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for restoration of the main fitting joint of the NLG retraction actuator to the NLG strut. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Task 32-33-01-111 of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Revision 19, dated November 13, 2017, for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes.

    • Task 32-33-01-111 of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Revision 9, dated November 13, 2017, for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes.

    • Task 32-33-01-111 of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Revision 28, dated November 13, 2017, for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes.

    • Task 32-33-01-111 of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Revision 15, dated November 13, 2017, for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes.

    • Task 32-33-01-111 of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, Revision 9, dated November 13, 2017, for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes.

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

    FAA's Determination

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

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

    Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

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

    Explanation of Service Bulletin Effectivity

    Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-022 erroneously specifies “BD-700-1A10 aircraft” in paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity,” the effectivity should be Bombardier, Inc., Model “BD-700-1A11 airplanes” instead.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 $340 $20,400

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

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

    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Action Labor cost Parts
  • cost
  • Cost per
  • product
  • 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $10,487 $10,572

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0710; Product Identifier 2018-NM-079-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 1, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 through 9638 inclusive and 9998.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by in-service findings that a cotter pin at the main fitting joint of the nose landing gear (NLG) retraction actuator to the NLG strut showed evidence of shearing after a NLG retraction-extension cycling. We are issuing this AD to address this condition which could lead to a loss of hardware and result in an actuator disconnect and the NLG failing to retract or extend, or in an undamped freefall, which could adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) Task 32-33-01-111, “Restoration of the Nose Landing Gear Shock-Strut Assembly to Retraction-Actuator Main-Fitting Joint,” as specified in the applicable time limits/maintenance checks (TLMC) manual identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable. The initial compliance time for doing the task is at the time specified in the applicable TLMC manual listed in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EP16AU18.000 (h) Inspection and Modification

    (1) Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Within 6 months from the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection for damage of the cotter pin retaining the bolt that secures the NLG retraction actuator to the NLG strut, and a general visual inspection of the modification number shown on the identification plate for the NLG strut, and, if applicable, mark the correct modification number on the identification plate of the NLG strut, in accordance with the applicable Bombardier service information as shown in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD. If damage to the cotter pin is present: Before further flight, perform the modification of the NLG attachment joint in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier service information as shown in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) The actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD are not required for airplanes that do not have the NLG configuration specified in Paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity” of the applicable Bombardier service information as shown in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD.

    EP16AU18.001 (i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

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

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    EP16AU18.002 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(viii) of this AD, provided that it can be confirmed that at least 25 NLG extension-retraction cycles had been completed on the NLG at the time of completion of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(viii) of this AD; and provided neither the NLG nor the NLG retract actuator has been replaced or modified since the completion of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(viii) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-022, dated May 13, 2015.

    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-32-022, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2015.

    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-035, dated May 13, 2015.

    (iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-035, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2015.

    (v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5011, dated May 13, 2015.

    (vi) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-5011, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2015.

    (vii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6011, dated May 13, 2015.

    (viii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-32-6011, Revision 1, dated August 26, 2015.

    (k) Service Information Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may incorporate Liebherr-Aerospace Service Bulletin 1285A-32-07 at any revision level on the NLG strut assemblies of any Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 or BD-700-1A11 airplane.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2018-05, dated January 23, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0710.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531; email [email protected]

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 7, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17622 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0758; Product Identifier 2018-NM-093-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a review of the Airbus A350 structure design principles database for type definition that revealed that the balancer fitting part, installed on the tail cone, on a certain frame (FR) has several corrosion-resistant stainless steel nuts that do not meet the requirements for protection against corrosion. This proposed AD would require application of a new additional overcoat sealant and elastic varnish on the affected nuts and fasteners. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0758; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.

    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-2018-0758; Product Identifier 2018-NM-093-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0123, dated June 4, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following a complete review of the Airbus A350 structure design principles database for type definition, it was revealed that the balancer fitting part, installed on the tail cone, lower section of Frame (FR) 103, has several corrosion resistant stainless steel nuts installed on elementary aluminium parts, which does not meet the requirements for protection against corrosion.

    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus developed production mod 110319 to improve protection against corrosion, and issued the SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A350-53-P024] to provide modification instructions for in-service pre-mod aeroplanes. At the same time the production mod 110348 is equivalent to in-service solution.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a modification, adding new additional overcoat sealant and elastic varnish on the affected nuts and fastener heads.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0758.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A350-53-P024, dated April 3, 2018. This service information describes procedures for the application of a new additional overcoat sealant and elastic varnish on the affected nuts and fasteners. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    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 7 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $500 $670 $4,690

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2018-0758; Product Identifier 2018-NM-093-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 1, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category, except those on which Airbus modification 110319 or Airbus modification 110348 has been embodied in production.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review of the Airbus A350 structure design principles database for type definition that revealed that the balancer fitting part, installed on the tail cone, lower section of frame (FR) 103, has several corrosion-resistant stainless steel nuts installed on elementary aluminum parts, and this configuration does not meet the requirements for protection against corrosion. We are issuing this AD to address this condition, which if not corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Action

    Within 72 months since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, apply additional overcoat sealant and elastic varnish to the fastener heads and the anchor nuts of the balancer fitting at FR 103, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-53-P024, dated April 3, 2018.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2018-0123, dated June 4, 2018, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0758.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3218.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 9, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17646 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2018-0711; Product Identifier 2018-NM-062-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt an airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded movement of the captain's and first officer's seats. This proposed AD would require, for the captain's and first officer's seats, repetitive horizontal actuator identifications, repetitive checks of the horizontal movement system (HMS), a detailed inspection of the HMS, as applicable, and applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also require a general visual inspection to determine seat part numbers of the captain's and first officer's seats, a cable adjustment check on seats with certain seat part numbers, and applicable on-condition actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0711.

    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-2018-0711; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Myra Kuck, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5316; fax: 562-627-5210; 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-2018-0711; Product Identifier 2018-NM-062-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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We received reports indicating uncommanded movement of the captain's and first officer's seats. In one instance, a Boeing Model 777 airplane operator reported that the captain's seat could not be locked in position after the horizontal position of the seat was adjusted in flight. The seat became unlocked from the track and moved freely forward and aft, and the first officer assumed the controls for approach and landing. An inspection found the horizontal actuator output shaft on the seat had broken, resulting in an inability to prevent forward and aft seat movement or lock the seat in position. A broken horizontal actuator output shaft may be the result of high loads beyond the design limits, a stalled motor due to high mechanical resistance during operation of the seat, or foreign object debris in the seat tracks.

    Because Boeing Model 757 airplanes use the same seats in the flight deck, we are proposing this AD to prevent uncommanded movement of the captain's and first officer's seats, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane. We plan similar actions for other Boeing airplanes using the same seats in the flight deck.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive horizontal actuator identifications, repetitive checks of the HMS, a detailed inspection of the HMS, as applicable, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include an overhaul of the HMS and checks of the HMS.

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 1, dated July 2, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a general visual inspection to determine the seat part numbers on the captain's and first officer's seats, and, for seats with certain part numbers, a manual override cable adjustment check of the captain's and first officer's seats, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include moving the adjustment nut, tightening the lock nut, and readjusting the control lever.

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

    FAA's Determination

    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 accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018, and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 1, dated July 2, 2018, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD, and except as explained under “Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information” in this NPRM.

    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0711.

    Differences Between Proposed AD and Service Information

    Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 1, dated July 2, 2018, recommends accomplishing the actions “within 72 months,” we have determined that this compliance time will not ensure that the identified unsafe condition is addressed in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered the manufacturer's recommendation, as well as the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the modifications. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 36 months for completing the required actions is warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs for Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Identification/Check Up to 11 work-hours × $85 per hour = $935 per identification/check cycle Up to $4,820 Up to $5,755 per identification/check cycle Up to $97,835 per identification/check cycle. Inspection Up to 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 Up to $85 Up to $1,445.

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

    Certain configurations of captain's and first officer's seats may require special tooling to align the seats. Special tooling for one set of captain's and first officer's seats will cost $22,000, and a certain other set will cost $23,000. If an operator owns both combinations of seats, the special tooling will cost up to $45,000 per operator.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0711; Product Identifier 2018-NM-062-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 1, 2018.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded movement of the captain's and first officer's seats. We are issuing this AD to address the uncommanded movement of the captain's or first officer's seat, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Identification, Check, Inspection, On-Condition Actions (Includes Overhaul of Horizontal Movement System) and Repetitive Actions

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018.

    (h) Exceptions To Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD: Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018, uses the phrase “the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”

    (i) Seat Inspection, Adjustment Check for Certain Seats, and On-Condition Actions

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 1, dated July 2, 2018: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified as RC in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 1, dated July 2, 2018. A review of the airplane maintenance records may be used for the seat inspection if the part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Myra Kuck, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5316; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 7, 2018. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17621 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Parts 5, 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903 [Docket No. FR-6123-A-01] RIN 2529-AA97 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and Enhancements AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) invites public comment on amendments to HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) regulations. The goal of the regulations is to provide HUD program participants with a specific planning approach to assist them in meeting their statutory obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. HUD is committed to its mission of achieving fair housing opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status. However, HUD's experience over the three years since the newly-specified approach was promulgated demonstrates that it is not fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding meaningful action by program participants. Accordingly, HUD has determined that a new approach towards AFFH is required. As HUD begins the process of developing a proposed rule to amend the existing AFFH regulations, it is soliciting public comment on changes that will: Minimize regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to plan for fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act; create a process that is focused primarily on accomplishing positive results, rather than on performing analysis of community characteristics; provide for greater local control and innovation; seek to encourage actions that increase housing choice, including through greater housing supply; and more efficiently utilize HUD resources. HUD is also reviewing comments submitted in response to the withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool and will consider those comments during HUD's consideration of potential changes to the AFFH regulations.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments to the Office of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0001. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” section. There are two methods for submitting public comments.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at all federal agencies, however, submission of comments by mail often results in delayed delivery. To ensure timely receipt of comments, HUD recommends that comments submitted by mail be submitted at least two weeks in advance of the public comment deadline.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD and enables HUD to make comments immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Comments. All comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Krista Mills, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy, Legislative Initiatives, and Outreach, Office Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5246, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-6577. Individuals with hearing or speech impediments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service during working hours at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 16, 2015, HUD published in the Federal Register its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) final rule.1 The principal AFFH regulations are codified in 24 CFR part 5, subpart A, with other AFFH related regulations codified in 24 CFR parts 91, 92, 570, 574, 576, and 903. The stated purpose of the AFFH final rule was to provide HUD program participants with a revised planning approach to assist them in meeting their legal obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act. Since issuance of the final rule, however, HUD has concluded that the current regulations are ineffective in helping program participants to meet this obligation. The highly prescriptive regulations give participants inadequate autonomy in developing fair housing goals as suggested by principles of federalism. Additionally, the current regulations are ineffective in addressing the lack of adequate housing supply, which has particular adverse impact on protected classes under the Fair Housing Act. Finally, evidence from peer-reviewed literature indicates that the positive outcomes of policies focused on deconcentrating poverty are likely limited to certain age and demographic groups 2 and are difficult to implement at scale and without disrupting local decision making. HUD reached these determinations for the following reasons:

    1 80 FR 42357.

    2 Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Project.” American Economic Review 106 (4).

    1. Ineffectiveness of assessment tools. Under the AFFH rule, HUD program participants are required to use an Assessment Tool to conduct and submit an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to HUD. Because of the variations in the HUD program participants subject to the AFFH rule, HUD went through a process to develop three separate assessment tools: One for local governments, one for public housing agencies (PHAs), and one for States and Insular Areas.

    There are currently no approved assessment tools that are available for program participants to use. The different assessment tools are unavailable for different reasons. A final State and Insular Area Assessment Tool has not yet been developed by HUD. In the case of the Assessment Tool for use by PHAs, HUD published a Federal Register notice on January 13, 2017,3 announcing that the Assessment Tool was not yet available for use by PHAs because the HUD data needed to make the Assessment Tool workable was not yet available. HUD announced the availability of a Local Government Assessment Tool in a Federal Register notice published on December 31, 2015 4 and renewal of the Tool in a Federal Register notice published on January 13, 2017.5

    3 82 FR 4373.

    4 80 FR 81840.

    5 82 FR 4388.

    Since publication of the January 13, 2017, notice, HUD became aware of significant deficiencies in the Local Government Assessment Tool impeding completion and acceptance of meaningful assessments by program participants. Accordingly, HUD withdrew the Local Government Assessment Tool in a Federal Register notice published on May 23, 2018.6 As more fully explained in the May 23, 2018, withdrawal notice, HUD's decision was informed by its review of the initial round of AFH submissions that were developed using the Local Government Assessment Tool. This review led HUD to conclude that the Tool is unworkable based upon: (1) The high failure rate from the initial round of submissions; and (2) the level of technical assistance HUD provided to this initial round of 49 AFHs, which cannot be scaled up to accommodate the increase in the number of local government program participants with AFH submission deadlines in 2018 and 2019. Specifically, 63% of the initial 49 AFH submissions (31/49) were not accepted on initial submission. HUD returned 35% of these (17/49) as unacceptable. Many other AFH submissions (28% or 14/49) were accepted only after the program participants submitted revisions and additional information in the form of addendums in response to HUD's technical assistance. Interested readers are referred to the May 23, 2018, Federal Register notice for additional explanation regarding HUD's withdrawal of the Local Government Assessment Tool.

    6 83 FR 23922.

    2. Public comments on HUD regulatory reform efforts. The request for comments contained in this ANPR is also consistent with HUD's efforts to carry out the Administration's regulatory reform efforts. On May 15, 2017, HUD published a Federal Register notice consistent with Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” and 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” inviting public comments to assist HUD in identifying existing regulations that may be outdated, ineffective, or excessively burdensome.7 HUD received 299 comments in response to the Notice, and 136 (45% of the total) discussed the AFFH rule.

    7 82 FR 22344.

    While some of the comments expressed support for the AFFH rule, most of the comments were critical of the rule and cited its complexity and the costs associated with completing an AFH. The commenters wrote that the final rule fails to consider critical factors for program participants, such as the scarcity of available resources and other program priorities. Many of these commenters complained that the estimates contained in the final rule regarding the amount of time it would take to complete an AFH were unrealistically low. Small PHAs, in particular, wrote that compliance with the rule would result in their incurring large expenses. Other commenters complained that the rule is overly prescriptive. Still others noted deficiencies with the data program participants are required to rely on in completing their AFHs.

    II. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    As HUD begins the process of developing a proposed rule to amend the existing AFFH regulations, it is soliciting public comment on changes that will: (1) Minimize regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to meet their legal obligations; (2) create a process that is focused primarily on accomplishing positive results, rather than on performing analysis of community characteristics; (3) provide for greater local control and innovation; (4) seek to encourage actions that increase housing choice, including through greater housing supply; and (5) more efficiently utilize HUD resources.

    While the following list is not exhaustive, HUD is particularly interested in comments on the following questions:

    1. What type of community participation and consultation should program participants undertake in fulfilling their AFFH obligations? Do the issues under consideration in affirmatively furthering fair housing merit separate, or additional, public participation and consultation procedures than those already required of program participants in preparing their annual plans for housing and community development (i.e., the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, or PHA Plan)? Conversely, should public input on AFFH be included as part of the Consolidated Plan/PHA Plan public involvement process?

    2. How should the rule weigh the costs and benefits of data collection and analysis? Should the proposed rule allow program participants to develop or use the data of their choice? Alternatively, should HUD require the use of a uniform data set by all program participants in complying with their AFFH obligation? Should it vary by the nature of the program participant? Instead of a data-centric approach, should jurisdictions be permitted to rely upon their own experiences? If the latter, how should HUD assess this more qualitative approach?

    3. How should PHAs report their AFFH plans and progress? Should jurisdictions be required to provide a detailed report of the analysis performed or only summarize the goals? How often should program participants be required to report on their AFFH efforts? Should the proposed rule retain or revise the current timeframes for required AFFH submissions? Should program participants continue reporting annually on their AFFH actions and results in their program plans and annual performance reports or, given the long-term nature of many AFFH goals, should the reporting period be longer? Should planning and/or results be integrated into existing report structures, such as Consolidated Plans and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs), or utilize an alternative structure?

    4. Should the proposed rule specify the types of obstacles to fair housing that program participants must address as part of their AFFH efforts, or should program participants be able to determine the number and types of obstacles to address? Should HUD incentivize program participants to collaborate regionally to identify and address obstacles to affirmatively furthering fair housing, without holding localities accountable for areas outside of their control? Should HUD incentivize grantees and PHAs to collaborate in the jurisdiction and the region to remove fair housing obstacles? What are examples of obstacles that the AFFH regulations should seek to address? How might a jurisdiction accurately determine itself to be free of material obstacles?

    5. How much deference should jurisdictions be provided in establishing objectives to address obstacles to identified fair housing goals, and associated metrics and milestones for measuring progress?

    6. How should HUD evaluate the AFFH efforts of program participants? What types of elements should distinguish acceptable efforts from those that should be deemed unacceptable? What should be required of, or imposed upon, jurisdictions with unacceptable efforts (other than potential statutory loss of Community Development Block Grant, HOME, or similar funding sources)? How should HUD address PHAs whose efforts to AFFH are unacceptable?

    7. Should the rule specify certain levels of effort on specific actions that will be deemed to be in compliance with the obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act (i.e., “safe harbors”), and if so, what should they be?

    8. Are there any other revisions to the current AFFH regulations that could help further the policies of the Fair Housing Act, add clarity, reduce uncertainty, decrease regulatory burden, or otherwise assist program participants in meeting their AFFH obligations?

    III. Findings and Certifications Environmental Impact

    This ANPR is exclusively concerned with nondiscrimination standards. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(3), it is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347).

    Regulatory Review—Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Per Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This ANPR was reviewed by OMB and determined to likely result in a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Anna Maria Farías, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17671 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0212; FRL-9982-29—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Reasonable Further Progress Plan and Other Plan Elements for the Moderate Nonattainment Chicago Area for the 2008 Ozone Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the base year emissions inventory, reasonable further progress (RFP), RFP contingency measure, nitrogen oxides (NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT), and motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin nonattainment area (Chicago area) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA is also proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, RFP contingency measure, NOX RACT, I/M, and transportation conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area, which is classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0212, at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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:

    Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. What is the background for this action? II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission III. What action is EPA proposing? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background for this action? A. Background on the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).1 Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for EPA to designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for the standards. For the ozone NAAQS, this also involves classifying any nonattainment areas at the time of designation.2 Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined based on the area's “design value,” which represents air quality in the area for the most recent 3 years). The classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme.3

    1 73 FR 16436.

    2 CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1).

    3 CAA section 181(a)(1).

    Areas that EPA designates nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to certain requirements, including the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA section 172 and the ozone-specific nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 182. Ozone nonattainment areas in the lower classification levels have fewer and/or less stringent mandatory air quality planning and control requirements than those in higher classifications. For marginal areas, a state is required to submit a baseline emissions inventory, adopt provisions into the SIP requiring emissions statements from stationary sources in the area, and implement a nonattainment new source review (NSR) program for the relevant ozone NAAQS.4 For moderate areas, a state needs to comply with the marginal area requirements, plus additional moderate area requirements, including the requirement to submit a modeled demonstration that the area will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 6 years after designation, the requirement to submit an RFP plan, the requirement to adopt and implement certain emissions controls, such as RACT and I/M, and the requirement for greater emissions offsets for new or modified major stationary sources under the state's nonattainment NSR program.5

    4 CAA section 182(a).

    5 CAA section 182(b).

    B. Background on the Chicago 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Area

    On June 11, 2012,6 EPA designated the Chicago area as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Chicago area includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties and part of Grundy and Kendall Counties in Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana; and the eastern portion of Kenosha County in Wisconsin. On May 4, 2016,7 pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, EPA determined that the Chicago area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2015, marginal area attainment deadline and thus reclassified the area from marginal to moderate nonattainment. In that action, EPA established January 1, 2017, as the due date for all moderate area nonattainment plan SIP requirements applicable to newly reclassified areas.

    6 77 FR 34221, effective July 20, 2012.

    7 81 FR 26697.

    II. EPA's Evaluation of Wisconsin's SIP Submission

    Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision on April 17, 2017, and supplemental information on January 23, 2018, to address the moderate nonattainment area requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The submission contained several nonattainment plan elements, including a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory for the two ozone-forming precursor pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOX, a 15% RFP plan, a 3% RFP contingency measure plan, 2017 and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs, and an enhanced I/M program certification. The submission also included an attainment demonstration, a nonattainment NSR certification, and a VOC RACT certification, which will be addressed in a separate action(s).

    A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1), require states to develop and submit, as SIP revisions, comprehensive, accurate, and complete emissions inventories for all areas designated as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. An emissions inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of VOC and NOX from all sources located in the relevant designated nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA has recommended that states use 2011 as a base year for the emissions estimates.8 EPA approved on March 7, 2016,9 the 2011 base year emissions inventory, which Wisconsin submitted on November 14, 2014, for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area. In its April 17, 2017, submission, supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin included a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory submission. Relative to its original inventory, Wisconsin's revised 2011 base year emissions inventory modifies the emissions estimates for the point, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile sector, with emissions estimates for the area source sector remaining unchanged.

    8 78 FR 34178 at 34190.

    9 81 FR 11673.

    The methodology differences between Wisconsin's modified inventory and original inventory are summarized in Table 1 and the emissions difference are shown in Table 2. Relative to the original inventory, the modified inventory includes a more conservative (worst-case) emissions estimate from the one electric generating unit (EGU) in the Wisconsin portion of the area. Wisconsin estimated the modified inventory on-road emissions using the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model version 2014a, whereas it estimated the original inventory on-road mobile sector emissions with an older version of the model—MOVES version 2010b. Finally, Wisconsin estimated the modified inventory non-road mobile sector “MAR” emissions, which include commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using EPA's 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) version 2 and it estimated the “non-MAR” emissions, which are the non-road mobile emissions sources excluding commercial marine, aircraft, and rail locomotive, using MOVES 2014a, whereas the original inventory relied on the older NEI version 1 and National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), respectively. Because the modifications to the original EPA-approved inventory are based on updated resources and information as summarized above, EPA finds the updated inventory approvable and is proposing to approve the revised 2011 base year emissions inventory as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP.

    Table 1—Methodology Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved Inventory Sector Original inventory Modified inventory Point EGUs & non-EGUs: WI AEI for an average day in the third quarter EGUs: CAMD for a maximum day; non-EGU: WI AEI for an average day in the year. Area NEI v2 NEI v2. Onroad MOVES 2010b (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F) MOVES 2014a (Min/Max Temps: 70/94 °F). Nonroad air & rail: NEI v1; com.mar.: LADCO/NEI v1; non-MAR: NMIM model MAR: NEI v2; non-MAR: MOVES 2014a. CAMD = EPA's Clean Air Markets Division database, com.mar. = commercial marine, EGU = electric generating unit, MAR = commercial marine, aircraft and rail locomotive, MOVES = Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator, NEI = National Emissions Inventory, NMIM = National Mobile Inventory Model, WI AEI = Wisconsin's Air Emissions Inventory (which is used to develop NEI emissions). Table 2—Emissions Differences Between Wisconsin's Modified Inventory and Wisconsin's Original EPA-Approved Inventory Sector VOC Approved
  • inventory
  • RFP inventory NOX Approved
  • inventory
  • RFP inventory
    Point 0.70 0.72 8.80 11.16 Area 4.78 4.78 1.09 1.09 On-road 2.14 2.42 4.67 5.15 Non-road 2.42 1.51 2.33 2.07 Total 10.04 9.43 16.89 19.47
    B. 15% RFP Plan and 3% Contingency Plan

    The CAA requires that states with areas designated as nonattainment for ozone achieve RFP toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS. CAA section 172(c)(2) contains a general requirement that nonattainment plans must provide for emission reductions that meet RFP. For areas classified moderate and above, section 182(b)(1) imposes a more specific RFP requirement that a state had to meet through a 15% reduction in VOC emissions from the baseline anthropogenic emissions within 6 years after November 15, 1990. The state must meet the 15% requirement by the end of the 6-year period, regardless of when the nonattainment area attains the NAAQS. As with other nonattainment plan requirements for more recent iterations of the ozone NAAQS, EPA has promulgated regulations and guidance to interpret the statutory requirements of the CAA.

    EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP Requirements Rule),10 addressed, among other things, the RFP requirements as they apply to areas designated nonattainment and classified as moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.11 EPA interprets the 15% VOC emission reduction requirement in CAA section 182(b)(1) such that a state that has already met the 15% requirement for VOC for an area under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS would not have to fulfill that requirement through reductions of VOC again. Instead, EPA is interpreting CAA section 172(c)(2) to require states with such areas to obtain 15% ozone precursor emission reductions (VOC and/or NOX) over the first 6 years after the baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin previously met the 15% VOC reduction requirement of CAA section 182(b)(1) for Kenosha County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.12 Therefore, the state may rely upon NOX and/or VOC emissions reductions to meet the RFP requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    10 80 FR 12264.

    11 80 FR 12264 at 12271 and 40 CFR 51.1110.

    12 For both the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the entirety of Kenosha County was part of the 6-county Milwaukee nonattainment area. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Kenosha County (partial) is part of the Chicago nonattainment area, since the statistical area delineated based on U.S. Census Bureau data was updated to include Kenosha County as part of the Chicago statistical area. Wisconsin met the 15% VOC reduction requirement for the Milwaukee area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, which included the entirety of Kenosha County, therefore, the Wisconsin portion of the 2008 Chicago nonattainment area (Kenosha County inclusive and east of I-94) has already met the 15% VOC reduction requirement.

    EPA's SIP Requirements Rule indicates the base year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, for which areas were designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, can be 2011 or a different year of the states' choosing.13 However, EPA required that states selecting a pre-2011 alternate baseline year must achieve 3% emission reductions each year after the initial 6-year period has concluded up to the beginning of the attainment year. For a multi-state area, states must agree on the same base year. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana have all selected the EPA-recommended base year of 2011.

    13In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, No. 15-1115, decided February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled to reverse the portion of the rule that allowed for alternate years. However, since all 3 states for this multi-state area chose the default of 2011 as the base year, the decision has no impact here.

    States may not take credit for VOC or NOX reductions occurring from sources outside the nonattainment area for purposes of meeting the 15% RFP and 3% RFP requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). Wisconsin's 15% RFP represents emissions reductions which occurred in Wisconsin's portion of the nonattainment area in the time period from 2011 to 2017 thereby satisfying this requirement.

    Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, all state control measures approved into the SIP or Federal measures that provide emissions reductions that occur after the baseline emissions inventory year are creditable for purposes of the RFP requirements, provided that the reductions meet the standard requirements for creditability which include being enforceable, quantifiable, permanent, and surplus in terms of not having previously been counted toward RFP.

    States must also include contingency measures in their nonattainment plans. The contingency measures required for areas classified as moderate and above under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) must provide for the implementation of specific measures if the area fails to attain or to meet any applicable RFP milestone. The state must submit these measures for approval by EPA into the SIP as adopted measures that would take effect without further rulemaking action by the state or EPA upon a determination that an area failed to attain or to meet the applicable milestone. Per EPA guidance for purposes of the ozone NAAQS, contingency measures should represent one year's worth of RFP progress, amounting to reductions of at least 3% of the baseline emissions inventory for the nonattainment area. The purpose of the contingency measures is to provide additional emission reductions in the event of a failure to attain or meet any applicable milestone, which would occur while the state is revising its SIP for the area.14

    14 80 FR 12264 at 12285.

    Regarding the contingency measures, EPA's prior guidance for purposes of the ozone NAAQS specifies that some portion of the contingency measures must include VOC reductions. This previous limitation is no longer necessary in all areas. In particular, EPA has concluded that states with nonattainment areas classified moderate and above that have already completed the initial 15% VOC reduction required by CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), can meet the contingency measures requirement based entirely on NOX controls if that is what the state's analyses have demonstrated would be most effective in bringing the area into attainment. There is no minimum VOC requirement. Also, EPA is continuing its long-standing policy that allows promulgated Federal measures to be used as contingency measures as long as they provide emission reductions in the relevant years in excess of those needed for attainment or RFP.15

    15 80 FR 12264 at 12285.

    Wisconsin submitted documentation showing that emission reductions in the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area met the 15% RFP and 3% contingency requirements. Table 3 shows Wisconsin's estimated reductions from all sectors. Table 3 shows that the area's total VOC emissions decreased by 13.04% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.20% from 2017 to 2018. Table 3 shows the area's total NOX emissions decreased by 15.41% from 2011 to 2017 and 2.25% from 2017 to 2018.

    Table 3—Wisconsin's Source Sector Emissions in Tons per Summer Day (tpsd) for Eastern Kenosha County Sector VOC 2011 2017 2018 NOX 2011 2017 2018 Point 0.72 0.87 0.87 11.16 10.87 10.87 Area 4.78 4.77 4.74 1.09 1.08 1.08 Onroad 2.42 1.56 1.44 5.15 3.05 2.75 Nonroad 1.51 1.00 0.96 2.07 1.47 1.40 Total (% decrease from 2011-2017 and 2017-2018) 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10 (13.04%) (2.20%) (15.41%) (2.25%)

    Wisconsin is able to meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements entirely through Federal permanent and enforceable control measures within the mobile source sectors. Table 4 specifically contains the calculations showing Wisconsin's mobile source emissions reductions meet the RFP and RFP contingency requirements. The MOVES model for the on-road and non-road sectors assumed increases of 11-13% in vehicle or equipment population and usage while projecting a 34-41% reduction in ozone precursor emissions from 2011 to 2017. The estimated emissions reductions, therefore, cannot be attributed to reductions in source activity. Table 4 shows that of the 14.95% total VOC reductions from 2011-2018, 14.63% 16 came from the mobile sector. Table 4 also shows that of the 17.31% total NOX reductions from 2011-2018, 15.77% came from the mobile sector. Wisconsin is choosing to count 5% VOC reductions and 10% NOX reductions from 2011-2017 to meet the 15% RFP requirement, and 1% VOC reductions and 2% NOX reductions from 2011-2018 to meet the 3% RFP contingency requirement. In other words, 6% VOC reductions and 12% NOX reductions for a total of 18% to satisfy the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency requirements.

    16 Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).

    Table 4—Wisconsin's Mobile Source Emissions Reductions From 2011-2017 Are Sufficient To Meet the 15% RFP Requirement and Wisconsin's Mobile Source Emissions Reductions From 2017-2018 Are Sufficient To Meet the 3% RFP Contingency Requirement for Wisconsin's Portion of the Chicago Area VOC 2011 2017 2018 NOX 2011 2017 2018 Total emissions (tpsd) 9.43 8.20 8.02 19.47 16.47 16.10 % Reduction from base year emissions from 2011-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively 13.04% 1.91% 15.41% 1.90% Total 14.95% 17.31% Mobile sector (onroad + nonroad) emissions (tpsd) 3.93 2.56 2.40 7.22 4.52 4.15 % Reductions attributable to the mobile sector from base year emissions from 2011-2017 17 and 2017-2018, respectively 12.94% 1.70% 13.87% 1.90% Total 14.63% 15.77% Wisconsin's choice for 15% RFP requirement and 3% RFP contingency requirement, respectively 5% 1% 10% 2% Total 6% 12%

    17 Net the increase in emissions from the point source sector from 2011-2017 (see Table 3).

    The MOVES model incorporates a number of Federal emissions control programs into its projections. These emissions reduction measures are permanent and enforceable and are implemented everywhere, including in the nonattainment area. Tables 5 and 6 list the Federal permanent and enforceable control programs modeled by the MOVES model for the on-road sector and the non-road sector, respectively.

    Table 5—Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model for the Onroad Sector On-road control program Pollutants Model year * Regulation Passenger vehicles, SUVs, and light duty trucks—emissions and fuel standards VOC & NOX 2004-09+ (Tier 2) 2017+ (Tier 3) 40 CFR Part 85 & 86. Light-duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicle—evaporative standards VOC 2004-10 40 CFR Part 86. Heavy-duty highway compression engines VOC & NOX 2007+ 40 CFR Part 86. Heavy-duty spark ignition engines VOC & NOX 2005-08+ 40 CFR Part 86. Motorcycles VOC & NOX 2006-10 (Tier 1 & 2) 40 CFR Part 86. Mobile Source Air Toxics—fuel formulation, passenger vehicle emissions, and portable container emissions Organic Toxics & VOC 2009-15 ** 40 CFR Part 59, 80, 85, & 86. Light duty vehicle corporate average fuel economy standards Fuel efficiency (VOC & NOX) 2012-16 & 2017-25 40 CFR Part 600. * The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier requirements. ** The range in model years reflects phased implementation of fuel, passenger vehicle, and portable container emission requirements as well as the phasing by vehicle size and type. Table 6—Permanent and Enforceable Control Programs Modeled by the MOVES Model or Considered in Development of the MAR Inventory for the Nonroad Sector Nonroad control program * Pollutants Model year ** Regulation Aircraft VOC & NOX 2000-2005+ 40 CFR Part 87. Compression Ignition VOC & NOX 2000-2015+ (Tier 4) 40 CFR Part 89 & 1039. Large Spark Ignition VOC & NOX 2007+ 40 CFR Part 1048. Locomotive Engines VOC & NOX 2012-2014 (Tier 3) 2015+ (Tier 4) 40 CFR Part 1033. Marine Compression Ignition VOC & NOX 2012-2018 40 CFR Part 1042. Marine Spark Ignition VOC & NOX 2010+ 40 CFR Part 1045. Recreational Vehicle VOC & NOX 2006-2012 (Tier 1-3) 40 CFR Part 1051. Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—emission standards VOC & NOX 2005-2012 (Tier 2 & 3) 40 CFR Part 90 & 1054. Small Spark Ignition Engine <19 Kw—evaporative standards VOC 2008-2016 40 CFR Part 1045, 54, & 60. * Compression ignition applies to diesel non-road compression engines including engines operated in construction, agricultural, and mining equipment. Recreational vehicles include snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles. Small spark ignition engines include engines operated in lawn and hand-held equipment. ** The range in model years affected can reflect phasing of requirements based on engine size or initial years for replacing earlier tier requirements.

    These emissions reductions are surplus, meaning that Wisconsin has not previously claimed them for the purposes of other ozone NAAQS requirements. These emission reductions are also permanent, enforceable, and occurred during the 6-year attainment planning time period, which started with the 2011 base year. Wisconsin has demonstrated that these emissions reductions result in at least an 18% reduction (15% for RFP and 3% for the RFP contingency measure requirements, respectively) from the 2011 base year inventory emissions net of growth (and including a MVEB safety margin of 7.5% which will be discussed in more detail below). Thus, EPA is proposing to approve these emissions reductions as satisfying the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency measure requirements for the moderate nonattainment plan for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    EPA notes that the measures Wisconsin is relying upon to meet the contingency measures requirement are already implemented. Contingency measures may include Federal measures and local measures already scheduled for implementation, as long as the resulting emission reductions are in excess of those needed for attainment or to meet RFP in the nonattainment plan. EPA interprets the CAA not to preclude a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP or failure to attain. For more information on contingency measures, see the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (March 6, 2015, 80 FR 12264, 12285).

    The appropriateness of relying on already-implemented reductions to meet the contingency measures requirement has been addressed in two Federal circuit court decisions. See Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 58 (Jan. 8, 2018). EPA believes that the language of section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to this issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret the statutory language to allow approval of already implemented measures as contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters such as providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not relied upon to meet RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for the NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under EPA's longstanding interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called “early triggered” contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in Bahr leaves a split among the Federal circuit courts, with the Fifth Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to allow early triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit rejecting that interpretation. The Seventh Circuit in which Wisconsin is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.

    Because there is a split in the Federal circuits on this issue, EPA expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may elect to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9) allowing early triggered measures to be approved as contingency measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in circuits other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the attainment plan development process.

    As shown above, the emissions reductions projected through 2018 are sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency measures, consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow approval of already implemented control measures as contingency measures in states outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose approval of the contingency measures submitted by the state in the nonattainment plan for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area.

    C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, or projects that receive Federal funding or support, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy plans for nonattainment areas and maintenance plans for areas that qualify for redesignation to attainment of the ozone standards (maintenance areas).18 These control strategy plans (including reasonable further progress plans and attainment plans for purposes of the ozone NAAQS) and maintenance plans must include MVEBs for the relevant criteria pollutant or its precursor pollutants (VOC and NOX for ozone) to address pollution from on-road transportation sources. The MVEBs are the portion of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will meet an RFP milestone or provide for attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.19 The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.20

    18 See the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone standards in EPA's March 6, 2015 implementation rule (80 FR 12264).

    19 40 CFR 93.101.

    20 The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB, if needed, subsequent to initially establishing a MVEB in the SIP.

    When reviewing submitted control strategy or maintenance plan submissions, EPA must affirmatively find that the MVEBs contained therein are adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds that the submitted MVEBs are adequate for transportation purposes, then the MVEBs must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission; provision for a public comment period; and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments—Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change,” on July 1, 2004.21 Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in a June 30, 2003, proposed rule titled, “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes.” 22

    21 69 FR 40004.

    22 68 FR 38974, 38984.

    On January 16, 2015, Wisconsin submitted an early progress SIP submission with MVEBs for its portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone nonattainment area. On April 1, 2015, EPA found Wisconsin's MVEBs adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations.23 As part of its nonattainment plan submitted on April 17, 2017, and supplemented on January 23, 2018, Wisconsin submitted new 2017 and 2018 NOX and VOC MVEBs, which are lower than Wisconsin's previous MVEBs found adequate by EPA. Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBs include a safety margin that Wisconsin applied in the form of a 7.5% greater mobile source activity than actually projected for 2017 and 2018, respectively. By applying this additional 7.5% on the front end of the analysis, Wisconsin's MOVES model output estimates of NOX and VOC emissions for 2017 and 2018 include a built-in safety margin. States typically do this in an effort to accommodate future variations in travel demand models and vehicle miles traveled forecast. As shown in Table 4 above, Wisconsin has demonstrated that the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area can meet the 15% RFP and 3% RFP contingency measure emission reduction requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS with mobile source (onroad + nonroad) emissions, which include an onroad budget of 1.56 tpsd VOC and 3.05 tpsd NOX in 2017 and 1.44 tpsd VOC and 2.75 tpsd NOX in 2018 (Table 7 below), and these emissions will remain under 2017 and 2018 RFP plus contingency measure target levels, even with the inclusion of the added 7.5% safety margin.

    23 80 FR 17428.

    Wisconsin's 2017 and 2018 MVEBS were developed as part of an interagency consultation process which includes Federal, state, and local agencies. The MVEBS were clearly identified and precisely quantified. These MVEBs, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with the 15% RFP and 3% contingency measure emission reduction requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for this area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's revised 2017 and 2018 MVEBs into the Wisconsin SIP. If EPA finalizes this approval, these MVEBs will replace the MVEBs previously established for the 2008 ozone NAAQS early progress plan and Wisconsin must use these updated MVEBs for future transportation conformity determinations for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment area. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are listed in Table 7.

    Table 7—Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for Eastern Kenosha County for 2017 and 2018 Year Emissions
  • (tons per summer day)
  • VOC NOX
    2017 1.56 3.05 2018 1.44 2.75
    D. Motor Vehicle I/M Program Certification

    The requirement to adopt a motor vehicle I/M program for moderate ozone nonattainment areas is described in CAA section 182(b)(4) and the regulations for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Under these cumulative requirements, states with areas classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone with 1990 Census-defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt basic I/M programs, while serious and higher classified ozone nonattainment areas outside of the northeast ozone transport region with 1980 Census-defined urbanized populations of 200,000 or more are required to adopt enhanced I/M programs. The Chicago area meets the criteria for mandatory I/M under the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area is already operating an enhanced I/M program due to being designated nonattainment and classified as serious or above under an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA initially approved on August 16, 2001,24 Wisconsin's I/M program and later approved on September 19, 2013,25 revisions to Wisconsin's I/M program. Wisconsin's approved enhanced I/M program in the SIP is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart S for the alternate low enhanced performance standards. In its April 17, 2017, submission, Wisconsin certified that it still meets the Federal enhanced I/M performance requirement. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has met the I/M requirement for its portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    24 66 FR 42949.

    25 78 FR 57501.

    E. NOX RACT Certification

    Section 182(f) of the CAA requires RACT level controls for major stationary sources of NOX located in moderate ozone nonattainment areas. “RACT” is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.26 Section 302 of the CAA defines a major stationary source as any facility which has the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any air pollutant. EPA approved Wisconsin's NOX RACT program into the SIP on October 19, 2010,27 for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Wisconsin's NOX RACT requirements are codified at NR 428.20 to 428.26 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Wisconsin's NOX RACT rules are applicable to major stationary sources of NOX located in Wisconsin's moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including Kenosha County. The only major source of NOX in the portion of Kenosha County that is designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is Wisconsin Electric Power Company, D/B/A We Energies-Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. This source has selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology for controlling NOX emissions from each of its two coal-fired boilers and has been subject to an emission limit of 0.10 pounds of NOX per Million British Thermal Unit (MMBTU) since May 1, 2009. Because Wisconsin has EPA-approved NOX RACT rules applicable to Kenosha County sources in its SIP, and EPA considers the current control technology and limit at the major stationary source in the 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment portion of Kenosha County to be RACT for NOX, EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has satisfied the NOX RACT requirements for its moderate nonattainment plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment area, which is the portion of Kenosha County inclusive and east of Highway 94.

    26 44 FR 53762.

    27 75 FR 64155.

    F. Emissions Statement Certification

    For marginal ozone nonattainment areas, states must adopt SIP provisions requiring emissions statements from stationary sources of VOC and NOX.28 States may waive this requirement for sources emitting less than 25 tons per year of VOC and less than 25 tons per year of NOX.29 Under NR 438 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Wisconsin requires annual NOX and VOC emission reporting from any facility in the state that emits NOX above 10,000 pounds (5 tons) per year and VOC above 6,000 pounds (3 tons) per year. This includes facilities in nonattainment areas such as the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA previously approved NR 438 into the Wisconsin SIP on December 6, 1993.30

    28 CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i).

    29 CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).

    30 58 FR 64155.

    As part of a moderate ozone nonattainment plan, states should certify that the proper emissions statement reporting requirements are in place. If an area has a previously approved emission statement provision in the SIP in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, then such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The state should review the existing rule to ensure it is adequate and, if it is, may rely on it to meet the emission statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In cases when an existing emission statement requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of the implementation rule for the 2008 ozone standard, states can provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement in its SIP submission to meet this requirement.31

    31 80 FR 12264 at 12291.

    In a separate submission to EPA on August 15, 2016, Wisconsin included a certification that its emissions statement provision in the SIP is still adequate to meet the requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago 2008 ozone nonattainment area. In Wisconsin's January 23, 2018, supplemental submission to EPA regarding Wisconsin's moderate area ozone nonattainment plan for the Chicago area, Wisconsin requested that EPA act on its August 15, 2016, emission statement certification as part of the action on Wisconsin's nonattainment plan elements included in this proposal. Because Wisconsin has an EPA approved SIP provision requiring stationary sources to report annually their NOX and VOC emissions at least as high as 25 tons per year for each precursor, EPA proposes that Wisconsin has satisfied the emissions statement requirement for its nonattainment plan for the Chicago area for the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    III. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Wisconsin's SIP pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations because Wisconsin's April 17, 2017, nonattainment plan submissions and January 23, 2018, supplement along with a prior submission on August 15, 2016, satisfy the emission inventory, RFP, RFP contingency measure, NOX RACT, emissions statement, I/M, and transportation conformity requirements for the Wisconsin portion of the Chicago area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 1, 2018. James Payne, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17590 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0165; FRL-9982-30—Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Approval of Sulfur Dioxide Regulations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, under the Clean Air Act, Ohio's revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) regulations, which Ohio submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017. Ohio updated its regulations to correct facility information which has changed and to add new emission limits for selected sources in Lake and Jefferson Counties. The revised regulations do not impose substantive changes or additional emission restrictions upon the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) except for the site-specific provisions which have been revised in response to Ohio's nonattainment area designations of August 5, 2013. EPA is proposing to approve the majority of the revised regulations which the state submitted. EPA proposes to take no action on a portion of one submitted rule, which has never been federally approved. EPA also proposes to remove one rule from the SIP, which Ohio rescinded and replaced in 2009.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0165 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For 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:

    Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)353-5954, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    I. Introduction II. Review of Rules A. Overview B. Revisions to General Rules C. Rules Addressing Nonattainment Areas 1. Lake County Area 2. Muskingum River Area (Morgan and Washington Counties) 3. Steubenville Area (Jefferson County) D. County-Specific Issues 1. Cuyahoga County 2. Lorain County 3. Ross County 4. Wayne County E. Removal of Rescinded Rule III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Introduction

    On March 13, 2017, Ohio submitted revisions to the Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-18 (OAC 3745-18), effective on February 16, 2017, for incorporation by EPA into the Ohio SO2 SIP. OAC 3745-18 contains Ohio's air emission regulations for SO2, which include both statewide requirements and emission limits for each Ohio county. This submittal was the product of a comprehensive examination of the state's SO2 rules which Ohio undertook in accordance with its routine five-year rule review process. The state made a number of revisions to OAC 3745-18, updating facility data to match the current information in its operating permits database and removing requirements which only applied to facilities which have closed or units which have been removed from existing facilities. For several sources, Ohio retained the existing limits in OAC 3745-18, but separately issued federally enforceable permits containing tighter limits than those in the rule, or new provisions reflecting physical changes at the facility. Generally, these permits addressed changes which had occurred too late to include in the state's rulemaking action. The effect of EPA's approval of the revised OAC 3745-18 SIP rules submitted on March 13, 2017, would be to retain federal enforceability of both sets of limits for each source.

    Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal also included rules which Ohio had developed to address Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for three 1-hour SO2 nonattainment areas. Ohio first adopted these new rules, which are found in OAC 3745-18-03, OAC 3745-18-04, OAC 3745-18-47, and OAC 3745-18-49, on October 13, 2015, and submitted the rules to EPA as part of the state's October 13, 2015, nonattainment SIP submittal. Later, Ohio made significant revisions and corrections to some of the nonattainment area rules. The state adopted the revised nonattainment area rules on February 6, 2017, and submitted them to EPA on March 13, 2017, within Ohio's larger five-year rule review package. EPA is proposing action on Ohio's entire March 13, 2017 submittal of revisions to OAC 3745-18, regarding their incorporation into the state's SO2 SIP. Separate action will address whether Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-18-03, OAC 3745-18-04, OAC 3745-18-47, and OAC 3745-18-49 satisfy EPA's nonattainment planning requirements.

    II. Review of Rules A. Overview

    Ohio's federally approved SO2 SIP contains six generally applicable chapters of OAC 3745-18 and 88 county-specific chapters. The six generally applicable chapters are OAC 3745-18-01, “Definitions and incorporation by reference,” OAC 3745-18-02, “Ambient air quality standards; sulfur dioxide,” OAC 3745-18-03, “Attainment dates and compliance time schedules,” OAC 3745-18-04, “Measurement methods and procedures,” OAC 3745-18-05, “Ambient and meteorological monitoring requirements,” and OAC 3745-18-06, “General emission limit provisions.” Specific emission limits for SO2 sources in each Ohio county are found in OAC 3745-18-07 (“Adams county emission limits”) through OAC 3745-18-94 (“Wyandot county emission limits”).

    Ohio's March 13, 2017 SIP revision request included revised versions of all of these rules except OAC 3745-18-02 and OAC 3745-18-06. Ohio's federally approved SO2 SIP currently includes OAC 3745-18-02, “Ambient air quality standards; sulfur dioxide,” with an effective date of January 23, 2006. However, Ohio rescinded this rule in 2009 and moved its contents to a new rule. See section II E. for the discussion of EPA's proposed action regarding OAC 3745-18-02. Ohio's federally approved SO2 SIP also includes OAC 3745-18-06, with an effective date of February 17, 2011. Ohio did not submit any revisions to this rule. Therefore, the 2011 version of this rule is retained in Ohio's SIP.

    Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal updated OAC 3745-18 with current information for each listed facility, as confirmed by the state database. Some Ohio facilities have merged or changed ownership in recent years. Ohio updated the rules where necessary to reflect each facility's current name or ownership and the current location of the emission units that are subject to SO2 emission limits. Ohio removed some facilities entirely from the site-specific emission limit listings if the state had evidence confirming that the entire facility has closed, or that all the emission units at the facility which were subject to the site-specific emission limits have been removed or are no longer emitting SO2. If a facility's site-specific emission limits were removed, but the facility is still operating and could be subject to its general countywide limit, Ohio retained the facility's listing in the compliance date section of OAC 3745-18-03.

    B. Revisions to General Rules

    OAC 3745-18-01 contains definitions and references to test methods and other Federal requirements. Ohio updated the Code of Federal Regulations publication dates in this rule. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-01.

    OAC 3745-18-03 contains the compliance dates and schedules applicable to Ohio SO2 sources. Ohio has removed and reserved OAC 3745-18-03(A), which required attainment with the NAAQS by specific dates, because the county-specific attainment dates in OAC 3745-18-03(A)(2) have passed and Ohio found the requirements in OAC 3745-18-03(A)(1) duplicative of language in other state and Federal documents. Since the attainment date language was no longer contained in the rule, Ohio retitled OAC 3745-18-03 “Compliance time schedules.” Ohio added paragraphs in OAC 3745-18-03(B) and OAC 3745-18-03(C) which apply to sources in the Lake County nonattainment area and the Steubenville WV-OH interstate nonattainment area. These paragraphs are discussed below in section II C. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-03.

    OAC 3745-18-04 contains fuel test method requirements for Ohio facilities. Ohio revised OAC 3745-18-04 to update facility names and locations for sources with facility-specific coal test method requirements. Ohio removed facility-specific or county-specific coal test methods where they were no longer necessary, because the affected facilities are no longer operating, no longer using coal, or currently using other methods, such as a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), for determining compliance.

    Ohio added one paragraph and removed another paragraph in OAC 3745-18-04(D), which are applicable to sources in the Lake County nonattainment area and the Steubenville WV-OH interstate nonattainment area. These paragraphs are discussed below in section II C.

    Several paragraphs in OAC 3745-18-04 have not been previously approved by EPA, because they appeared to allow compliance determinations based on 30-day averaged emission calculations for emission limits which were intended to address NAAQS with averaging times of 24 hours and less. These paragraphs, OAC 3745-18-04(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6) and OAC 3745-18-04(E)(2), (E)(3) and (E)(4), have not been significantly revised in Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal. As the previously identified deficiencies have not been adequately addressed, EPA proposes to take no action on these provisions, and they are not part of the SIP.1

    1 When these provisions were originally submitted, EPA policy was generally to find that limits with compliance based on 30-day averaging did not assure attainment with standards based on shorter averaging times. In 2014, EPA issued guidance reflecting a new policy, indicating that it could find that limits with averaging times up to 30 days may provide for attainment in selected cases, subject to various criteria, most notably that the longer-term average limit reflect an adjustment so as to have comparable stringency to the 1-hour limit which had been demonstrated to provide for attainment. Ohio has not sought to demonstrate that these criteria are met on a state-wide basis, and so EPA has no new information that might warrant revisiting the approvability of these provisions.

    In the March 13, 2017 submittal, OAC 3745-18-04(D)(9)(c) contains a typographical error which misnames the required method for coal sampling and analysis for facilities in Butler County. OAC 3745-18-04(D)(9)(c) was approved into Ohio's SO2 SIP without the typographical error on January 31, 2002 (67 FR 4669). EPA proposes to take no action on the March 13, 2017 submittal of OAC 3745-18-04(D)(9)(c). The paragraph will instead be retained in Ohio's SO2 SIP as it was previously approved.

    Ohio made minor grammatical changes to OAC 3745-18-05, which covers requirements for ambient monitoring. EPA proposes to find these changes approvable.

    Most of Ohio's county-specific rules, OAC 3745-18-07 through OAC 3745-18-94, have been updated significantly. Ohio removed facility-specific emission limits where the affected facilities have closed, or where the units which were subject to the previously approved rules have been retired or have converted to use lower sulfur fuels. Ohio confirmed the facilities' current emissions and emission limitations with its operating permits database. Each county-specific rule has retained its previously approved general SO2 emission limit, applicable to all coal-fired steam generating units in the county. CAA section 110(l) states that SIP revisions cannot be approved if they interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. EPA proposes to find that it is permissible under CAA section 110(l) to approve the revised rules in Ohio's March 13, 2017 SIP submittal where Ohio has removed obsolete emission limits for units which have permanently closed and for which the permits to operate have been revoked, as these rule revisions do not indicate permission to increase emissions.

    C. Rules Addressing Nonattainment Areas

    On August 5, 2013, EPA designated three areas nonattainment for SO2 in Ohio: Lake County, the Muskingum River area, and the Steubenville OH-WV interstate area. Ohio was required to prepare SIPs which would bring its three SO2 nonattainment areas into attainment by October 4, 2018. After evaluating local SO2 emissions and using dispersion models to determine the emission limits which could be expected to provide for attainment, Ohio revised its SO2 SIP rules to address SO2 sources within these nonattainment areas at OAC 3745-18-49 (Lake County) and OAC 3745-18-47 (Jefferson County). Ohio added related provisions in OAC 3745-18-03 and OAC 3745-18-04. Ohio first adopted these nonattainment area provisions in October 2015, but later made significant revisions and corrections to the rules. Ohio adopted the revised rules on February 6, 2017, and submitted them to EPA on March 13, 2017.

    1. Lake County Area

    The new and revised rules relevant to the Lake County nonattainment area include OAC 3745-18-03(B)(9), OAC 3745-18-03(C)(11), OAC 3745-18-04(D)(10), OAC 3745-18-49(F), OAC 3745-18-03(C)(3)(hh), and the removal of the previously approved paragraph OAC 3745-18-49(G). Ohio revised the Lake County rule at OAC 3745-18-49(F) to add new emission limits for the Painesville Municipal Electric Plant in Painesville, Ohio (the Painesville plant). OAC 3745-18-49(F) restricts the Painesville plant to operate only one of its three boilers on coal at any time; limits Boiler 5 to 287 pounds of SO2 per hour (lb/hr), averaged over 30 operating days; and limits Boilers 3 and 4 each to 340 lb/hr, averaged over 30 operating days. The combined average operating rate for the three boilers must not exceed 249 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr) for any calendar day, excluding heat input from burning natural gas or biomass. Each boiler is additionally limited to no more than a ten percent annual capacity factor as defined in 40 CFR 63.7575, excluding heat input from burning natural gas or biomass. The rule also defines biomass as an additional fuel source for this facility; the biomass would not be a significant source of SO2. The revisions to OAC 3745-18-49(F) represent a reduction in allowable SO2 emissions and operating rates for this facility.

    Ohio added OAC 3745-18-03(B)(9) to require the Painesville plant to apply for a permit or permit modification to provide for compliance with its site-specific SO2 emission limits. Ohio added OAC 3745-18-03(C)(11) to require compliance with the revised site-specific rules for the Painesville plant as of thirty days from February 16, 2017, which is the effective date of the revised rules OAC 3745-18-03(C)(11) and OAC 3745-18-49(F). The Painesville plant's compliance date is the earliest compliance date practicable after Ohio revised the facility's previously adopted rules to address an issue EPA identified in Ohio's 2015 nonattainment SIP submittal for Lake County. Ohio added OAC 3745-18-04(D)(10) to provide the method for calculating compliance with the Painesville plant's revised emission limits in OAC 3745-18-49(F).

    Ohio has removed the entry at OAC 3745-18-49(G) for the Eastlake Power Plant in Willoughby, Ohio (now known as the Eastlake Substation), because the boilers at the Eastlake Substation which were subject to OAC 3745-18-49(G) were permanently shut down in April 2015. OAC 3745-18-03(C)(3)(hh) still requires any remaining emission units at the Eastlake Substation to comply with the county-wide SO2 limits at OAC 3745-18-49(A). The shut-down units, however, may not restart without applying for a new permit. Because the Eastlake Substation has permanently retired its boilers and has thus significantly reduced its SO2 emissions, and because the Eastlake Substation no longer holds a permit to restart the boilers, EPA proposes to find that the removal from the SIP of the Eastlake Substation's boiler limits is permissible under CAA section 110(l).

    EPA is proposing to approve the rule revisions in OAC 3745-18 which apply to the Painesville plant and the Eastlake Substation in Lake County, because the rules update the SIP and strengthen it by reducing allowable emissions. EPA is not proposing action regarding whether Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-18-49 and related material satisfy nonattainment planning requirements for the Lake County nonattainment area. EPA intends to address whether Ohio has satisfied the nonattainment planning requirements for the Lake County nonattainment area in a separate action.

    2. Muskingum River Area (Morgan and Washington Counties)

    The rules relevant to the Muskingum River nonattainment area include OAC 3745-18-64 (Morgan County), OAC 3745-18-90 (Washington County) and OAC 3745-18-03(C)(3)(tt). The previously approved rules OAC 3745-18-64(B) and OAC 3745-18-90(B) contained identical SO2 emission limits for the Muskingum River power plant, located near Waterford, Ohio (the Muskingum River plant). The boilers at the Muskingum River plant were permanently shut down as of July 14, 2015, leaving no emission units at the Muskingum River plant which are subject to OAC 3745-18-64(B) or OAC 3745-18-90(B). These units have been removed from the facility's permit. The shut-down units may not restart unless the facility applies for and receives a new permit. Therefore, Ohio has removed the entries for the Muskingum River plant from OAC 3745-18-64(B) and OAC 3745-18-90(B). Ohio retained and renumbered paragraph OAC 3745-18-03(C)(3)(tt) for the Muskingum River plant and updated the facility's name to Muskingum River Development, LLC. OAC 3745-18-03(C)(3)(tt) requires any remaining SO2 emission units at the facility to comply with the limits specified in OAC 3745-18-90, which, as revised, contains only the Washington County general SO2 limit for coal-fired steam generating units at OAC 3745-18-90(A). Because the Muskingum River plant has permanently retired its large boilers and has thus significantly reduced its SO2 emissions, and because the Muskingum River plant no longer holds a permit to restart the boilers, EPA proposes to find that the removal from the SIP of the Muskingum River plant's boiler emission limits is permissible under CAA section 110(l). EPA is proposing to approve the rule revisions applicable to the Muskingum River plant because they update Ohio's SO2 SIP by removing obsolete emission limits while complying with CAA section 110(l). EPA is not proposing action regarding whether Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-18-64(B), OAC 3745-18-90(B) and related material satisfy nonattainment planning requirements for the Muskingum River nonattainment area. EPA intends to address whether Ohio has satisfied the nonattainment planning requirements in a subsequent action.

    3. Steubenville Area (Jefferson County)

    The new and revised rules relevant to the Steubenville OH-WV interstate nonattainment area include the new paragraphs at OAC 3745-18-03(B)(9) and OAC 3745-18-03(C)(11), the revised emission limits in OAC 3745-18-47, and the removal of OAC 3745-18-04(D)(4). Ohio addressed three Jefferson County sources for the Steubenville nonattainment area: The Cardinal Power Plant in Brilliant, Ohio (the Cardinal plant), the Mingo Junction Steel Works, LLC facility in Mingo Junction, Ohio (Mingo Junction Steel Works), and the Mingo Junction Energy Center, LLC facility in Mingo Junction, Ohio, (Mingo Junction Energy Center). Ohio revised OAC 3745-18-47(D) for the Cardinal plant to limit each of units 1 and 2 to 1.065 pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) actual heat input. These limits, which reflect current permit conditions for the Cardinal plant, represent an SO2 emission reduction from the previously approved limits for the Cardinal plant, which had allowed 7.08 lb/MMBtu at units 1 and 2. Ohio also revised the emission limit for the Cardinal plant's unit 3 to 0.66 lb/MMBtu actual heat input and moved the listing to OAC 3745-18-47(D). Unit 3 had previously been listed under OAC 3745-18-47(O) as a unit operated by Buckeye Power, Incorporated, with a limit of 2.0 lb/MMBtu. EPA is proposing to approve these rule revisions because they update the Ohio SO2 SIP and strengthen it by reducing allowable SO2 emissions.

    For Mingo Junction Steel Works, which was formerly listed in OAC 3745-18-47(G) as Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, Steubenville South Plant, Ohio has removed the obsolete emission limits in OAC 3745-18-47(G)(1) for Boilers 1 through 12 and the obsolete emission limits in OAC 3745-18-47(G)(2) for the forty-four-inch soaking pits combusting coke oven gas. The boilers have shut down and the Mingo Junction Steel Works no longer receives or uses coke oven gas as fuel; it now uses natural gas. Ohio added limits of 1.0 lb/hr for the facility's reheat furnaces 2 to 4 at OAC 3745-18-47(G)(3), a limit of 105.0 lb/hr for the electric arc furnace number 1 at OAC 3745-18-47(G)(4), and a limit of 14.0 lb/hr for the ladle metallurgical furnace to the electric arc furnace at OAC 3745-18-47(G)(5). EPA is proposing to approve these rule revisions because they update the Ohio SO2 SIP to reflect the current facility name and operations at Mingo Junction Steel Works. EPA is also proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-47(G) because it strengthens the SIP by reducing allowable emissions.

    For the Mingo Junction Energy Center, the state has added OAC 3745-18-47(P) which limits units 1 to 4 to 0.0028 lb/MMBtu actual heat input each. This limit reflects a fuel change from coke oven gas to natural gas. EPA is proposing to approve this rule revision because it strengthens the Ohio SO2 SIP by reducing allowable emissions.

    Ohio added OAC 3745-18-03(B)(9) to require Mingo Junction Steel Works and the Mingo Junction Energy Center to apply for a permit or permit modification to provide for compliance with their site-specific SO2 emission limits. (Cardinal's revised limits are already in its permit.) Ohio added OAC 3745-18-03(C)(11) to require compliance with the revised site-specific rules for the Cardinal plant, Mingo Junction Steel Works and the Mingo Junction Energy Center by January 1, 2017. This compliance date reflects the recommendations of EPA's nonattainment SIP guidance.

    Ohio removed OAC 3745-18-04(D)(4), which gave a specific compliance test method for the Cardinal plant. The provision is no longer considered necessary due to the Cardinal plant's current limits, operations, and emission controls. The Cardinal plant is subject to the federally approved compliance test requirements in OAC 3745-18-04(D). Under its current operating permit, the Cardinal plant uses CEMS to determine compliance with its permitted emission limits.

    EPA is proposing to approve the revised rules for the Cardinal plant, Mingo Junction Steel Works and the Mingo Junction Energy Center as measures which update the state's SO2 SIP and strengthen the SIP by reducing allowable emissions. EPA is not proposing action regarding whether Ohio's revisions to OAC 3745-18 for the Cardinal plant, Mingo Junction Steel Works and the Mingo Junction Energy Center, and related material, satisfy nonattainment planning requirements for the Steubenville OH-WV interstate nonattainment area. EPA intends to address whether Ohio has satisfied the nonattainment planning requirements for the Steubenville WV-OH nonattainment area in a subsequent action.

    D. County-Specific Issues 1. Cuyahoga County

    Ohio revised OAC 3745-18-24(V) regarding the Medical Center Company, located in Cleveland, to update the facility's operating unit names and to remove emission limits for units which have not been present at the facility since 2002. The Medical Center Company has recently replaced two boilers, 1N and 2N, with three new units having lower SO2 emissions. Ohio placed new requirements in a 2015 federally enforceable permit-to-install for the Medical Center Company, stating that the old boilers must be permanently retired by January 13, 2017. See final permit-to-install number P0118541. Ohio relied on the emission reductions from this boiler replacement during the designation process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, the Cuyahoga County rule at OAC 3745-18-24, as adopted February 6, 2017, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017, retained the Medical Center Company's previously approved emission limit of 4.6 lb/MMBtu for each of the old boilers. Although the rule retained the previously approved limit, the facility's boiler closure requirement and the lower SO2 emission limits applicable to its new units are federally enforceable in the facility's permit. EPA is proposing to approve the revised OAC 3745-18-24(V) as an update to the SIP, since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    Likewise, the emission limits for Cleveland Thermal, LLC, at OAC 3745-18-24(G) and OAC 3745-18-24(H), have been updated to revise the facility's name, address, and premise number, and to remove emission limits for units which shut down prior to 2002. The updated rules still contain limits for several units, B101, B102, B104, B001, B002, B003, B005, and B006, which Cleveland Thermal, LLC, was to retire or convert to auxiliary status by January 2017, in accordance with a consent decree. The consent decree is in force and Cleveland Thermal, LLC's federally enforceable permit no longer includes these units. EPA is proposing to approve the revised OAC 3745-18-24(G) and OAC 3745-18-24(H) as an update to the SIP, since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    The remainder of the Cuyahoga County rule has been revised to update facility names and locations and to remove emission limits for facilities which were no longer operating and for units which no longer operate at existing facilities. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-24.

    2. Lorain County

    Ohio revised the Lorain County rule at OAC 3745-18-53(B) for the Avon Lake Power Plant (the Avon Lake plant) in Lorain County, to update facility identification and remove emission limits for units which were shut down between 1981 and 1997. In November 2016, Ohio placed new SO2 emission limits for the Avon Lake plant in a federally enforceable operating permit. The new limits, which were effective as of January 13, 2017, provided a combined emission limit of 1.59 lb/MMBtu for Boilers 10 and 12 on a 30-day average basis. See permit-to-install number P0121748. Ohio relied on these limits, which reduced the Avon Lake plant's allowable SO2 emissions, during the designation process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, the Lorain County rule, as adopted February 6, 2017, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017, retained the Avon Lake plant's previously approved emission limit of 4.65 lb/MMBtu for Boilers 10 and 12 each. Although the revised rule retained the previous, higher emission limit, the tighter SO2 emission limits within the Avon Lake plant's operating permit are federally enforceable. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-53(B), since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    Ohio added paragraph OAC 3745-18-53(G) for U.S. Steel Seamless Tubular Operations, LLC—Lorain. This paragraph covers an emissions unit which was previously listed under OAC 3745-18-53(D), but has been transferred to a new location and a new owner within the city of Lorain, Ohio. The unit retains its previously approved emission limits of 1.98 lb/MMBtu and 178 lb/hr.

    The remainder of the Lorain County rule has been revised to update facility names and locations, and to remove emission limits for facilities which were no longer operating and for units which no longer operate at existing facilities. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-53.

    3. Ross County

    Ohio revised the Ross County rule at OAC 3745-18-77(B) for the P. H. Glatfelter Company-Chillicothe Facility (Glatfelter) in Ross County, to update facility identification and remove emission limits for units which have been shut down for many years. In 2016, Ohio placed a new facility-wide SO2 emission limit of 1,800 tons per year, effective January 13, 2017, in a federally enforceable permit for Glatfelter. See permit-to-install number P0118906. This limit reduced Glatfelter's allowable SO2 emissions, and Ohio relied on this limit during the designation process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. However, the Ross County rule, as adopted February 6, 2017, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017, retained Glatfelter's previously approved emission limit of 9.9 lb/MMBtu for Boilers 7 and 8 each. Although the rule retains the higher emission limit for Boilers 7 and 8, the tighter SO2 emission limit in Glatfelter's permit is federally enforceable. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-77(B) as an update to the SIP, since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    The remainder of the Ross County rule has been revised to remove emission limits for facilities which were no longer operating and for units which no longer operate at existing facilities. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-77.

    4. Wayne County

    In 2016, Ohio placed a new facility-wide SO2 emission limit of 1,475 tons per year, effective January 13, 2017, in a federally enforceable operating permit for the Department of Public Utilities, City of Orrville, Ohio facility (the Orrville plant) in Wayne County. See permit number P0120280. Ohio relied on this limit, which reduced the Orrville plant's allowable SO2 emissions, during the designation process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Wayne County rule at OAC 3745-18-91, as adopted February 6, 2017, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017, updated the Orrville plant's facility identification but retained the Orrville plant's previously approved emission limit of 7.0 lb/MMBtu for Boilers 10 to 13 each (OAC 3745-18-91(E)). Since the Orrville plant's tighter SO2 emission limit in its permit is federally enforceable, EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-91(E) as an update to the SIP, since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    In 2015, Ohio revised the federally enforceable permit for Morton Salt, Inc., in Rittman, Ohio, to reflect the facility's replacement of two boilers with new units with lower SO2 emissions. See permit number P0120758. Ohio relied on this boiler replacement and the resulting reduction in allowable SO2 emissions during the designation process for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Wayne County rule at OAC 3745-18-91, as adopted February 6, 2017, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 2017, updated Morton Salt, Inc.'s facility identification but retained the facility's previously approved emission limit of 7.0 lb/MMBtu for Boilers 1 and 2 each (OAC 3745-18-91(F)). Since Morton Salt, Inc. has replaced its old boilers, and has federally enforceable SO2 emission limits for its new units in its permit, EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-91(F) as an update to the SIP, since this action would retain EPA's authority to enforce both limits.

    The remainder of the Wayne County rule has been revised to remove emission limits for facilities which were no longer operating and for units which no longer operate at existing facilities. EPA is proposing to approve OAC 3745-18-91.

    E. Removal of Rescinded Rule

    On September 17, 2009, Ohio submitted revisions to its SIP, and requested that EPA remove OAC 3745-18-02, “Ambient air quality standards; sulfur dioxide,” from the SIP, because Ohio had rescinded OAC 3745-18-02 and moved its contents to a new rule, OAC 3745-25-02, “Ambient air quality standards,” effective April 18, 2009. This rule defined and listed the primary and secondary SO2 standards (prior to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS) and required ambient air quality sampling using the EPA Reference Method or an equivalent method. In accordance with Ohio's September 17, 2009, SIP revision request, EPA approved OAC 3745-25-02 into Ohio's SIP on October 26, 2010 (75 FR 65572), but EPA did not remove OAC 3745-18-02 from the SIP. Ohio's rule OAC 3745-25-02(B), effective on April 18, 2009, contained substantially identical rule language to the existing SIP version of OAC 3745-18-02 which was effective on January 23, 2006. As the rule language which was previously approved as OAC 3745-18-02 can now be found within Ohio's federally approved SIP at OAC 3745-25-02(B), the removal of rule OAC 3745-18-02 from the SIP is permissible under section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA proposes to remove OAC 3745-18-02 from Ohio's SIP.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's March 13, 2017 submittal of OAC 3745-18-01; OAC 3745-18-03; OAC 3745-18-04 [with the exception of OAC 3745-18-04(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), and (D)(9)(c), and OAC 3745-18-04(E)(2), (E)(3) and (E)(4)]; OAC 3745-18-05; and OAC 3745-18-07 through OAC 3745-18-94; as effective on February 16, 2017. EPA proposes to find that these regulations update and strengthen the Ohio SO2 SIP. EPA proposes to take no action on OAC 3745-18-04(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), and (D)(9)(c), and OAC 3745-18-04(E)(2), (E)(3) and (E)(4). EPA proposes to remove OAC 3745-18-02 from the Ohio SO2 SIP.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Ohio rules OAC 3745-18-01; OAC 3745-18-03; OAC 3745-18-04 [with the exception of OAC 3745-18-04(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), and (D)(9)(c), and OAC 3745-18-04(E)(2), (E)(3) and (E)(4)]; OAC 3745-18-05; and OAC 3745-18-07 through OAC 3745-18-94, as effective on February 16, 2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 2, 2018. Cathy Stepp, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17587 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0532; FRL-9982-27—Region 7] Air Plan Approval; State of Iowa; Attainment Redesignation for 2008 Lead NAAQS and Associated Maintenance Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take action to approve the State of Iowa's request to redesignate portions of Pottawattamie County, Council Bluffs, Iowa to attainment for the 2008 lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination that the Council Bluffs area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the area has attained the standard. Additionally, EPA is approving the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the Council Bluffs area for ten years beyond redesignation.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0532 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Stephanie Doolan, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 at (913) 551-7719 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What action is EPA proposing to take? II. Background for EPA's Proposed Action III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Request A. Criteria (1)—The Area Has Attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS B. Criteria (2)—The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) C. Criteria (3)—The Air Quality Improvement is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the Applicable SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollutant Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions D. Criteria (4)—the Administrator Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan for the Area as Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A 1. Emissions Inventory 2. Maintenance Demonstration 3. Monitoring Network 4. Verification of Continued Attainment 5. Contingency Plan E. Criteria (5)—The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D IV. Summary of Proposed Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve Iowa's request to redesignate the Council Bluffs area to attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. On September 18, 2017, the state submitted a request for redesignation that demonstrates NAAQS attainment and an associated maintenance plan to ensure that the area continues to attain the standard. Based on its review of the state's submittal which is described in detail in the following sections, EPA proposes to approve the redesignation request for the area and associated maintenance plan.

    II. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    On October 15, 2008, EPA promulgated a revision to the Pb NAAQS, lowering the standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15 µg/m3 (73 FR 66963). The state began air monitoring for Pb on November 3, 2009, at a source-oriented monitor in the Council Bluffs area near the Griffin Pipe Products Company, LLC (Griffin Pipe) facility. The 2010 through 2012 design value for Pb at the monitor was 0.26 µg/m3, violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    Effective December 31, 2011, EPA designated a portion of Pottawattamie County, Council Bluffs, Iowa, as nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (76 FR 72097). On February 3, 2015, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) submitted a plan to bring the area back into attainment of the standard. EPA approved the state's SIP revision in a Federal Register notice dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770). The area attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS by the statutory deadline of December 31, 2016. The 2014 through 2016 design value for the area is 0.10 µg/m3.

    The mechanisms to enforce the attainment SIP revision are an Administrative Consent Order between Griffin Pipe and the state, and an air construction permit issued to Alter Metal Recycling, the adjacent facility that provided scrap metal to Griffin Pipe. On May 3, 2014, Griffin Pipe ceased operations. The approved attainment SIP revision includes two operational strategies for Griffin Pipe, options A and B. Under option A, the facility resumes operations with operational control measures to limit emissions. Option B provides for the permitting and installation of a baghouse to control emissions and less operating restrictions. To date, Griffin Pipe has not resumed operations of its Council Bluffs facility, but the emissions controls for either option to resume manufacturing are permanent and enforceable.

    Alter Metal Recycling continues to operate its facility under an air construction permit which contains a Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) limit and work practice standards in the form of paving and sweeping cleaning haul routes with a HEPA vacuum street sweeper. Also, Alter's construction permit contains limitations on truck traffic and total materials shipped are not to exceed 946,000 tons per rolling twelve-month period. In its construction permit, Alter is required to conduct silt sampling on haul routes internal to the facility boundaries at three locations to demonstrate that the silt content on roadways is less than 2.70 g/m2. The facility is not required to sweep if there has been 0.2 inches of rain within a twenty-four-hour period, the haul routes have not been used that day, or the weather is too hazardous to conduct sweeping (e.g., ice or snow). Alter's permit restricts truck traffic speeds on internal haul routes to twenty miles per hour. Recordkeeping to document haul route sweeping and weather conditions if sweeping is not conducted is required to be maintained for two years.

    III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Request

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

    A. Criteria (1)—The Area Has Attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS

    For designating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). EPA is proposing to determine that the portions of Pottawattamie County, Council Bluffs, Iowa, that previously violated the 2008 Pb NAAQS are now attaining it.

    According to 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, the 2008 Pb NAAQS is met at a monitoring site when the identified design value is valid and is less than or equal to 0.15 µg/m3. The form of the standard is based on the maximum three-month rolling average over a three-year period (thirty-six rolling calendar quarters, or thirty-eight total months). The design value is the highest Pb concentration recorded for a rolling three-month calendar quarter over a three-year period. The area has not recorded a Pb value at the air monitor greater than 0.15 µg/m3 during any rolling three-month calendar quarter since December 2012. As discussed above, the 2014 through 2016 design value, which is the three-year period for which valid data are available at this time, is 0.10 µg/m3.

    B. Criteria (2)—The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)

    As discussed above, EPA approved the state's SIP revision in a Federal Register rulemaking dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770). EPA believes that the state has met all of the requirements for approval of the state's attainment SIP revision. The requirements of the attainment SIP revision remain fully enforceable, including contingency measures in the event that the air monitor would record a future violation for the area.

    C. Criteria (3)—The Air Quality Improvement Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the Applicable SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollutant Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reduction in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA proposes to find that Iowa has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Council Bluffs area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP.

    The Council Bluffs Pb nonattainment SIP included an Administrative Consent Order between IDNR and Griffin Pipe dated January 29, 2015, and an air construction permit for Alter Metal Recycling dated September 2, 2014. Griffin Pipe is no longer operating at its Council Bluffs facility, which reduces the amount of Pb measured at the air monitor. In both scenarios, options A or B, under which Griffin Pipe may resume operations, there are emissions limitations and work practice controls that are expected to maintain NAAQS attainment. Both scenarios include haul road sweeping and cleaning, implementation of a scrap management plan to minimize the amount of Pb materials introduced to the melting process, and the use of Best Management Practices to control fugitive dust. The major difference between the two options is that option A employs more stringent production limits to control emissions; whereas, option B allows for greater production, but requires the facility to install a baghouse for greater emissions control. IDNR modeled both options and both demonstrate attainment of the standard. Thus, despite the uncertainty of whether Griffin Pipe will resume operations, EPA believes that the emissions reductions imposed by the approved SIP revision will continue to be permanent and enforceable.

    With regard to Alter Metal Recycling, the fugitive dust re-entrained by traffic along the haul routes within the facility is controlled by an air construction permit. The construction permit requires, among other things, paving of haul routes for truck traffic within the facility boundaries, limits on the hours of operation, a posted speed limit of twenty miles per hour to control re-entrainment of dust, and work practice standards that include sweeping haul routes using a HEPA filter vacuum truck. EPA believes that Alter's air construction permit provides permanent and enforceable controls on fugitive Pb dust emissions.

    D. Criteria (4)—The Administrator Has Fully Approved a Maintenance Plan for the Area as Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A

    In conjunction with its redesignation request submitted to EPA on September 18, 2017, IDNR also submitted a maintenance plan to provide for the ongoing attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS for at least ten years following the effective date of approval of the redesignation SIP revision. EPA believes the maintenance plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the CAA establishes requirements for maintenance plans for seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. EPA's interpretation of section 175A is contained in a September 4, 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director (at that time), Air Quality Management Division, to the directors of the air programs in the ten EPA regions. The Calcagni Memorandum provides guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that it should address five requirements: (1) An emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) an air quality monitoring commitment; (4); verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The following provides a discussion of how EPA believes the state's maintenance plan meets the requirements of 175A.

    1. Emissions Inventory

    The state is required to develop an inventory of actual emissions to identify the level of emissions sufficient to attain the NAAQS. Since Griffin Pipe is currently idled, IDNR provided an analysis of potential to emit (PTE) rather than actual emissions, because it believes the actuals are an underestimation. For Griffin Pipe, IDNR estimates PTE to be 0.254 tpy for option A and 0.392 tpy for option B based on the allowable emissions in the Administrative Consent Order. For Alter Metal Recycling, IDNR estimates that its current PTE is 0.61 tpy based on the allowable emissions in its air construction permit. EPA believes the state has satisfied the requirement to develop an attainment inventory.

    2. Maintenance Demonstration

    The state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the 0.15 ug/m3 standard by either showing that future Pb emissions will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The demonstration should be for a period of ten years following the redesignation, e.g., until 2028 for the maintenance plan update.

    The state demonstrates attainment of the standard using the attainment inventory since it is based on maximum permitted allowable emissions and Pb emissions are not expected to increase over the maintenance period. Further, IDNR relied on the attainment plan modeling submitted in 2015 as a part of the EPA approved SIP. Dispersion modeling is a more sophisticated means of demonstrating maintenance because it incorporates meteorology, topography, and source characteristics in addition to permitted allowable emissions rates. The attainment demonstration modeling followed current EPA guidance, used the EPA-approved modeling software, AERMOD, and maximum permitted emissions rates. No significant changes in modeling inputs have occurred since its submittal and none are anticipated through the maintenance period. Therefore, EPA finds that the state has demonstrated that Iowa has demonstrated maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    3. Monitoring Network

    Once an area has been redesignated, the state has committed in its Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Pb Nonattainment Area in Council Bluffs, Iowa, that it will continue to operate the air quality monitor (site ID 19-155-0011) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Air modeling has shown this monitoring location to be in the predicted area of maximum impact from fugitive emissions from both Griffin Pipe and Alter Metal Recycling. Thus, this air monitoring location continues to be acceptable for verifying continued NAAQS attainment. The state will continue to operate a Pb monitor at this location for a minimum of ten years. As required by section 175A, eight years following redesignation, the state shall submit an additional maintenance plan. The Pb monitoring network will be revisited at that time.

    4. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The state has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of Administrative Consent Order for Griffin Pipe and the construction permit for Alter Metal Recycling to ensure ongoing attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. These SIP-approved documents contain the permanent and enforceable measures for controlling Pb emissions. Should another source of Pb emissions to air seek a permit in the area to construct a new source or modify an existing one, the state will evaluate on a case-by-case basis the potential impacts to air quality and NAAQS attainment. State law also gives IDNR the ability to establish more stringent emissions standards and/or the ability to require the installation of additional control equipment to ensure the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

    The state commits in its maintenance plan to continue to operate its Pb monitoring site to verify the attainment status of the area and will continue to follow the air monitoring network review process, as required by 40 CFR part 58, to determine the adequacy of the Pb monitoring network when monitoring may be discontinued.

    5. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation to attainment. The state has established a trigger that will initiate a timely response to indications of a possible future violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS: It will evaluate the need for additional control measures if any three-month rolling average concentration of 0.14 ug/m3(approximately 95 percent of the standard) or greater is measured at the ambient air monitor. The state will require that any necessary measures be implemented as expeditiously as practicable. IDNR has the authority (Iowa Code 455B.134) to issue orders consistent with rules to cause the abatement or control of air pollution to ensure that the NAAQS are not violated. The approach of using a trigger at approximately 95 percent of the standard is expected, along with the previously approved SIP control measures, to ensure maintenance of the standard.

    Contingency measures in the approved attainment SIP revision dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770) remain available and enforceable. If a NAAQS violation occurs after redesignation, at a minimum the IDNR will require the implementation of all measures, including the contingency measures, contained in the nonattainment plan for the area prior to the redesignation of the area to attainment. The nonattainment plan contingency measures for Griffin Pipe are specified in conditions A-5, paragraph O, and B-5, paragraph O, of the Administrative Order on Consent (2015-AQ-02). The contingency measures for Alter Metal Recycling are specific in condition 14.L of its air construction permit (14-A-521). These contingency measures include, for example, additional haul road sweeping/cleaning requirements.

    The state also has the authority to request or conduct new or supplemental reviews of Pb emissions from sources and activities affecting the nonattainment area. Contingency measures may include improvements to permitted control devices, or improvements to work practice standards, such as additional haul route sweeping. Once determined, the state will submit to EPA an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed measures are adequate to return the area to attainment.

    E. Criteria (5)—The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D

    Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to enforce the limitations. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; (3) implementation of a source permit program and provisions for the implementation of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program; (4) provisions for the implementation of Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR); (5) provisions for air pollution modeling; and (6) provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

    The requirements for the area to have enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures as well as an appropriate air monitoring program for collecting air quality data were met in the approved attainment SIP revision dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770). As ambient air monitoring data demonstrate, the means and methods of the attainment SIP revision have been successful in restoring air quality to attainment with the NAAQS.

    The other requirements of section 110(a)(2) pertain to the administration of the state program to ensure the effectiveness of its overall air quality management program. The adequacy of the remaining elements of section 110(a)(2) including the state's PSD and Nonattainment NSR programs, its ability to conduct air modeling and provisions for public participation in air planning are addressed in EPA's November 14, 2015 final approval of the state's infrastructure SIP revision (80 FR 48791). In EPA's final approval of the state's infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, program elements necessary to ensure the enforcement and maintenance of air quality standards were determined to be adequate to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2).

    Finally, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that the redesignation plan meet the requirements of part D. Section 172(c)identifies key provisions that states must address in a nonattainment SIP, including: (1) Provisions for attainment and the timely implementation of all reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably available control measures (RACM); (2) reasonable further progress (RFP); (3) an emissions inventory for the nonattainment area; (4) Nonattainment NSR; (5) a control strategy with enforceable limits and schedules and timetables for compliance; and (6) contingency measures.

    The approved attainment SIP revision dated February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9770) contains legally enforceable control measures and includes an evaluation of how those measures meet RACT and RACM. The approved attainment SIP also included a plan for making RFP. All of the contingency measures in the approved attainment SIP revision are available and enforceable for use, if necessary. An emissions inventory is included in the attainment SIP revision and this inventory is updated in the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan as discussed in paragraph III, criteria 4 a. above. The state's Nonattainment NSR is approved in the infrastructure SIP revision (80 FR 48791).

    IV. Summary of Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Iowa's request to redesignate the Council Bluffs area to attainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Based on its detailed analysis above, EPA believes that the state's September 18, 2017, request for redesignation demonstrates NAAQS attainment and the associated maintenance plan will ensure that the area continues to attain the standard. Thus, EPA proposes to approve the redesignation request for the area and associated maintenance plan.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

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

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

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: August 3, 2018. James B. Gulliford, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as set forth below:

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

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

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “(50) Lead Redesignation SIP and Maintenance Plan” to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (50) Lead Redesignation SIP and Maintenance Plan Portions of Pottawattamie County 9/18/17 8/16/2018, [Federal Register citation of the final rule] [EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0532; FRL-9982-27—Region 7].
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    4. In § 81.316, the table entitled “Iowa—2008 Lead NAAQS” is amended by revising the entry “Pottawattamie County, IA:” to read as follows:
    § 81.316 Iowa Iowa—2008 Lead NAAQS Designated area Designation for the 2008 NAAQS a Date 1 Type Pottawattamie County, IA: Pottawattamie County (part) [Date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] Attainment. Area bounded by Avenue G on the north, N 16th/S 16th street on the east, 23rd Avenue on the south, and N 35th/S 35th street on the west Rest of State Unclassifiable/Attainment. a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17583 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 679 and 680 [Docket No. 180327320-8320-01] RIN 0648-BH88 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Prohibit Directed Fishing for American Fisheries Act Program and Crab Rationalization Program Groundfish Sideboard Limits in the BSAI and GOA AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulations to modify management of the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program and Crab Rationalization (CR) Program. This proposed rule has two related actions. The first action would modify regulations for AFA Program and CR Program vessels subject to limits on the catch of specific species (sideboard limits) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Management Area and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Management Area. The second action would remove the requirement for the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives to submit a weekly catch report. This proposed rule is intended to reduce administrative burdens associated with managing sideboard limits through annual harvest specifications, although it would not change NMFS's inseason management of sideboard limits and reduce reporting burdens for the designated representatives and members of AFA inshore cooperatives.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0045, by either of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0045, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    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), 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).

    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (the “Analysis”) prepared for this proposed rule may be obtained from www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; and to OIRA by email to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Obren Davis, (907) 586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for Action

    NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), and the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP). NMFS manages vessels subject to specific limitations on the catch of specific species or species groups (sideboard limits) under the AFA Program under the BSAI and GOA FMPs, and NMFS manages vessels and License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses subject to sideboard limits under the CR Program under the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared these FMPs under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations implementing the BSAI and GOA FMPs are located at 50 CFR part 679. Regulations implementing the Crab FMP are located at 50 CFR part 680. General regulations governing U.S. fisheries also appear at 50 CFR part 600.

    Background

    This proposed rule includes two related actions. The first action would revise regulations at § 679.64 and § 680.22 for sideboard limits that apply to two categories of vessels that operate in the BSAI or GOA: (1) AFA catcher/processors (C/Ps) listed in regulation at § 679.4(l)(2)(i) (described as AFA C/Ps in this proposed rule), and AFA catcher vessels (CVs) permitted to harvest Bering Sea pollock as established in regulation at § 679.4(l)(3); and (2) vessels and LLP licenses subject to sideboard restrictions in the GOA based on criteria as established in regulation at § 680.22(a) under the CR Program. This first action would prohibit directed fishing for groundfish species or species groups that are subject to sideboard limits that are not large enough to support directed fishing as that term is defined at § 679.2. In addition, under the first action, this proposed rule would remove a sideboard limit at § 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B) for AFA C/Ps in one management area (Central Aleutian Islands (AI)) for one species (Atka mackerel) that is currently subject to a more restrictive limit under existing regulations at 50 CFR 679.91(c)(2)(ii) and Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679.

    The first action under this proposed rule is necessary to streamline and simplify NMFS's management of applicable groundfish sideboard limits. NMFS calculates numerous AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits as part of the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications process and publishes these limits in the Federal Register. Concurrently, NMFS prohibits directed fishing for the majority of the groundfish subject to these sideboard limits because most sideboard limits are too small each year to support directed fishing. The most recent example of the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications with the AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits can be found at 83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018, for the BSAI, and at 83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018, for the GOA. Rather than continue this annual process of calculating all sideboard limits and then closing most to directed fishing, the first action of this proposed rule would revise regulations to prohibit directed fishing by non-exempt AFA Program and CR Program vessels for those groundfish species and species groups subject to sideboard limits if those species or species groups have not been opened to directed fishing or are not expected to be opened to directed fishing in the foreseeable future (see Section 2.7 of the Analysis for additional detail on the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits). Also, NMFS would cease calculating and publishing each year the relevant sideboard limits and their corresponding directed fishing prohibitions in the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications.

    The second action of this proposed rule would remove the requirement for the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives (described later in this preamble) to submit a weekly catch report described in regulation at §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3). NMFS proposes to remove this requirement because the information in the weekly catch report is collected by NMFS through other recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and this weekly catch report is no longer necessary for NMFS to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations.

    This first action of this proposed rule was initiated after the Council received a report on the AFA Program in October 2016. As part of the review, NMFS identified potential improvements in the management of the AFA Program by streamlining and simplifying the management of the sideboard limits included under the AFA: NMFS recommended revising regulations to prohibit directed fishing by AFA vessels for those species or species groups (and any future break-out or combination of these species) where the sideboard limits are not large enough to support directed fishing and would not be large enough in the foreseeable future to support directed fishing. During subsequent review of this proposed action, NMFS expanded the scope of the review to include an analysis of revising regulations to prohibit crab vessels in the CR Program from directed fishing in the GOA for those species with sideboard limits that are not large enough to support directed fishing and would not be large enough in the foreseeable future to support directed fishing. At its February 2018 meeting, the Council selected Alternative 2 and Option 1 as its preferred recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce. The Council's recommendation, implemented through this proposed rule, would prohibit directed fishing by regulation for all species or species groups with insufficient sideboard limits for directed fishing by vessels in both AFA and CR Programs, and would remove from regulation the sideboard limit on AFA C/Ps for Central AI Atka mackerel harvest because the harvest of Central AI Atka mackerel by AFA C/Ps is constrained by other, existing regulations.

    The following discussion summarizes groundfish sideboard limits, the AFA Program and AFA sideboard limits, the CR Program and CR Program sideboard limits, the annual harvest specifications process and the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits through that annual process, AFA Inshore Cooperative reporting requirements, and this proposed rule.

    Groundfish Sideboard Limits

    The Council and NMFS generally establish catch limits, commonly called sideboard limits, when implementing Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP). The term “Limited Access Privilege” is defined in section 3(26) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802). Sideboard limits are intended to prevent participants who benefit from receiving exclusive harvesting privileges in a LAPP from shifting effort into other fisheries. Sideboard limits establish limits on the annual amount of a particular groundfish total allowable catch (TAC) limit or prohibited species catch (PSC) limit that is available for participants in a given LAPP.

    The AFA Program and AFA Program Sideboard Limits

    The Bering Sea pollock fishery is managed under the authority of the AFA (16 U.S.C. 1851 note) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The AFA Program is a LAPP that established in the Bering Sea pollock fishery directed fishing allocations to an inshore and an offshore component (commonly called the inshore and offshore sectors). The AFA also determined eligible vessels and processors in the Bering Sea pollock fishery; allowed the formation of cooperatives of catcher vessels in association with specific processors in the inshore sector; established sideboard limits; and imposed special catch weighing and monitoring requirements on AFA C/Ps. The AFA was implemented by Amendment 61 to the BSAI FMP, Amendment 61 to the GOA FMP, Amendment 13 to the Crab FMP, and Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska (67 FR 79692; December 30, 2002). The final rule implementing the AFA (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002) and Section 2.7.1 of the Analysis describe the AFA Program in detail and the basis for the sideboard limits established under the AFA Program.

    The final rule implementing the AFA established several different types of sideboard limits for vessels that are authorized to harvest pollock in the Bering Sea. These sideboard limits were established to protect the interests of fishermen and processors who do not directly benefit from the AFA from those fishermen and processors who received exclusive harvesting and processing privileges under the AFA. Essentially, the AFA Program sideboard limits protect non-AFA fishermen and processors by restricting the ability of AFA pollock fishermen and processors to target non-pollock groundfish species and species groups. Some of these sideboard limits were implemented through directed fishing closures in regulations, such as setting the Atka mackerel harvest limit to zero in the Bering Sea subarea and Eastern AI (§ 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(A)). Others were implemented through sideboard limits established through the annual harvest specifications process, which is described later in this preamble.

    Section 679.7(k)(1)(ii) prohibits listed AFA C/Ps from harvesting any species of fish in the GOA. Section 679.64(a)(1) establishes sideboard limits for AFA C/Ps for Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch (§ 679.64(a)(1)(i)); Atka mackerel (§ 679.64(a)(1)(ii)); flathead sole, rock sole, and yellowfin sole (§ 679.64(a)(1)(iii)); and for the remaining groundfish species (§ 679.64(a)(1)(iv)). Section 679.64(a)(1)(v) establishes an exemption to sideboard limits for AFA C/Ps for yellowfin sole under specific TAC conditions. Section 679.64(a)(2) establishes specific sideboard limits for Pacific halibut and crab incidentally harvested by AFA C/Ps while fishing for groundfish in the BSAI. The methodologies used to assign sideboard limits for these species vary and are described in § 679.64(a).

    Section 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B) establishes a sideboard limit for Central AI (also referred to as Area 542 in regulation) Atka mackerel that is equal to 11.5 percent of the annual TAC for Atka mackerel. In 2007, NMFS implemented the Amendment 80 Program (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007). The Amendment 80 Program modified the management of several non-pollock species in the BSAI that are subject to sideboard limits under the AFA Program. Under regulations that implemented the Amendment 80 Program, no more than 10 percent of the Central AI Atka mackerel TAC may be harvested by vessels other than Amendment 80 vessels, which are designated as the BSAI trawl limited access sector and include AFA C/Ps (§ 679.91(c)(2)(ii) and Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679). Therefore the maximum amount of the Central AI Atka mackerel TAC available to AFA C/Ps under regulations implementing Amendment 80 (10 percent) is less than the sideboard limit established for AFA C/Ps when the AFA Program was implemented in 2000 (11.5 percent). By constraining the AFA C/Ps directed fishing for Central AI Atka mackerel, the more restrictive allocation of TAC under the Amendment 80 Program is, effectively, a conservation and management measure that operates similar to the larger sideboard limit established for Central AI Atka mackerel under the AFA groundfish sideboard regulations. Additional detail on the Amendment 80 Program is provided in the final rule for that program (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).

    Section 679.64(b) establishes sideboard limits for AFA CVs. Section 679.64(b)(3)(i) through (iii) establishes sideboard limits for groundfish in the BSAI using a variety of methods that depend on the species (e.g., the method for calculating the sideboard limit for BSAI Pacific cod differs from yellowfin sole). These methods are described at § 679.64(b)(3)(i) for BSAI groundfish other than Amendment 80 species; at § 679.64(b)(3)(ii) for BSAI Pacific cod; and at § 679.64(b)(3)(iii) for Amendment 80 species other than Pacific cod. Section 679.64(b)(3)(iv) establishes sideboard limits for AFA CVs for groundfish species in the GOA. The final rule implementing the AFA Program provides additional information on the management of sideboard limits for AFA CVs (67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002).

    Section 679.64(b)(2) exempts specific AFA CVs from sideboard limits in the BSAI (§ 679.64(b)(2)(i)) and the GOA (§ 679.64(b)(2)(ii)) based on criteria described in § 679.64(b)(2). These exemptions are intended to provide opportunities for vessels that have historically fished in the BSAI or GOA for species other than pollock, but that also have some limited participation in the Bering Sea pollock fisheries. This proposed rule would not affect the management of exempt AFA catcher vessels.

    The CR Program and CR Program Sideboard Limits

    The CR Program is a LAPP that allocates nine BSAI crab species among harvesters, processors, and coastal communities. Participants in the CR Program receive exclusive harvesting and processing privileges for a portion of the annual TAC established for each crab fishery under the CR Program. The final rule implementing the CR Program describes the different elements of the program, including groundfish sideboard limits in the GOA for vessels and LLP licenses that received allocations of exclusive harvesting privileges (quota share) under the CR Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005). These sideboard limits were developed to protect participants in other non-CR Program groundfish fisheries from increased participation by CR Program vessels in the GOA, as discussed in Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis. Essentially, the CR Program sideboard limits protect non-CR Program participants by restricting the ability of CR Program participants to target non-crab fisheries (i.e., GOA groundfish fisheries).

    CR Program sideboard limits are established for a variety of species and species groups and gear types, including pot, hook-and-line, jig, and trawl gear. CR Program sideboard limits are only applicable in the GOA. Section 680.22 establishes groundfish sideboard limits for vessels and LLP licenses with a history of participation in the Bering Sea snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) fishery. Sideboard harvest limits restrict these vessels' catch to their collective historical landings in each GOA groundfish fishery. Sideboard limits also apply to landings made using an LLP license derived from the history of a restricted vessel, even if that LLP license is used on another vessel. CR Program sideboard limits do not apply to AFA catcher vessels because these vessels already are subject to GOA sideboard limits under the AFA Program.

    Various final rules implementing provisions of the CR Program describe the basis for these sideboard harvest limits. These final rules include Amendments 18 and 19 to the Crab FMP (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005), Amendment 34 to the Crab FMP (76 FR 35772, June 20, 2011), Amendment 83 to the GOA FMP (76 FR 74670, December 1, 2011), and Amendment 45 to the Crab FMP (80 FR 28539, May 19, 2015).

    Annual Harvest Specifications Process and the Management of AFA Program and CR Program Sideboard Limits

    NMFS establishes the overfishing level, acceptable biological catch (ABC), and TAC for each species or species group through the annual groundfish harvest specifications process. NMFS allows vessels to retain incidental catch of species (if the TAC has not been reached) taken in other directed fisheries that are open, up to the maximum retainable amount (MRA) allowed in regulation (§ 679.20(e)). If a species is closed to directed fishing, and the TAC for that species is reached, NMFS prohibits retention of that species, and all catch of that species must be discarded. A MRA is calculated as a percentage of the retained amount of a species that is closed to directed fishing, relative to the retained amount of basis species or species groups open to directed fishing. Amounts that are caught greater than a particular MRA percentage must be discarded.

    In the annual harvest specifications, NMFS calculates sideboard limits for the AFA Program and the CR Program fisheries by multiplying a fixed ratio against the annual TAC or portion of the TAC for each BSAI and GOA groundfish species or species group. These ratios are derived based on the specific regulations described earlier in this preamble. The annual sideboard limit for most BSAI and GOA groundfish species is an amount that is much smaller than the overall TAC for each species. For the most recent example of the annual groundfish harvest specifications and associated AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, see the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for the BSAI and GOA (83 FR 8365, February 27, 2018, and 83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018, respectively).

    Consistent with regulations at §§ 679.64 and 680.22, NMFS manages the AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits by establishing directed fishing closures for a species or species group subject to a sideboard limit. This closure could happen during the fishing year if a particular sideboard limit is reached. Alternatively, NMFS may issue a directed fishing closure in the harvest specifications prior to the fishing year, if the sideboard limit is not sufficient to support directed fishing for a species or species group. NMFS has prohibited directed fishing for the majority of AFA CV and C/P sideboard limits since the initial implementation of the AFA Program implementation in 2000 (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000). NMFS also has prohibited directed fishing for the majority of CR Program sideboard limits in the GOA since CR Program was implemented in 2006. Directed fishing prohibitions have been issued because the sideboard limits for most species were insufficient to provide for both directed fishing of a species and incidental catch of that same species in other target fisheries.

    Section 2.7.1 of the Analysis describes the groundfish species subject to AFA CV and C/P sideboard limits that have been closed to directed fishing each year in the annual harvest specifications, and the limited number of groundfish species that have sideboard limits that have been sufficiently large to allow for directed fishing. Section 2.7.2 of the Analysis describes the groundfish species in the GOA subject to CR Program sideboard limits that have been closed to directed fishing each year in the annual harvest specifications, and the one groundfish species (Pacific cod) and gear type (pot) that has sideboard limits that have been sufficiently large to allow for directed fishing.

    AFA Inshore Cooperative Weekly Catch Report Requirements

    In addition to the Council's recommendations for proposed revisions to AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, NMFS also proposes to remove the requirement for the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives to submit a weekly catch report described in regulation at §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3) because this report is no longer necessary to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations. NMFS obtains the necessary information required on the AFA inshore cooperative weekly report through other reporting requirements at § 679.5(e). Removing this reporting requirement would reduce costs for the public to prepare and submit the weekly reports and for NMFS to review and process those weekly reports.

    Proposed Rule Action 1: Establishing Sideboard Limits in Regulation

    Under Action 1, NMFS would no longer publish AFA Program or CR Program sideboard amounts for specific species or species groups in the Federal Register as part of the annual groundfish harvest specifications, but would specify in regulation those species with sideboard limits that are subject to a directed fishing closure. Specification through regulation of these directed fishing closures will streamline and simplify NMFS's management of these applicable groundfish sideboard limits. NMFS would no longer need to calculate the applicable sideboard limits, prepare the necessary tables, and publish those sideboard limits and their corresponding directed fishing prohibitions each year in the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications. This will reduce staff time and annual costs to prepare and publish the BSAI and GOA groundfish harvest specifications.

    This proposed rule would not modify the ability of sideboard-restricted vessels to retain incidental catch of species closed to directed fishing while targeting other species. Vessels are allowed to retain incidental catch of species up to the MRA if the TAC of that species has not been reached, and once the TAC is reached, all retention of that species is prohibited. The regulations governing incidental catch, MRAs, and PSC status apply when a species is closed to directed fishing, whether closed to directed fishing through the annual BSAI and GOA harvest specifications or through a specific regulation. Accordingly, under this proposed rule, sideboard restricted vessels will remain subject to the same regulations governing the incidental catch of species or species groups with sideboard limits that are closed to directed fishing, and this proposed rule would not change NMFS's inseason management of sideboard limits. Moreover, the proposed approach that continues directed fishing closures for sideboard limits for AFA and CR Program vessels would continue to protect non-AFA and non-CR Program participants in other fisheries, in accordance with the original intent of creating sideboard limits (see Section 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 of the Analysis).

    This proposed rule would affect the sideboard limits for AFA CVs in the BSAI, AFA CVs in the GOA, AFA C/Ps in the BSAI, and non-AFA crab vessels in the GOA. For AFA CVs fishing in the BSAI, NMFS sets sideboard limits for 16 different groundfish species or species groups; however, in the annual harvest specifications, NMFS has closed most sideboard species to directed fishing by AFA CVs. Often, the sideboard amounts for these species are insufficient to support a directed fishery by the AFA CVs that are subject to the sideboard limit. Also, some sideboard species are not opened to AFA CVs for directed fishing because the species is fully allocated to the Amendment 80 Program (e.g., flathead sole, rock sole) or because there are no PSC sideboard limits apportioned to support directed fishing (e.g., Greenland turbot, arrowtooth flounder, Kamchatka flounder). A list of BSAI species or species groups with sideboard limits that are proposed to be closed in regulation to directed fishing by AFA CVs is provided in Table 2-5 of the Analysis. In the BSAI, AFA CVs have historically targeted two sideboard-limited species (Pacific cod and yellowfin sole), and this proposed rule would not change the management of those sideboard fisheries that have opened for directed fishing in the past and that likely would continue to support a directed fishery for those species and for certain gear types for Pacific cod (see Table 2-6 of the Analysis).

    Similarly, for AFA CVs fishing in the GOA, NMFS sets sideboard limits for different groundfish species or species groups, and through the harvest specifications NMFS closes many of those sideboard species to directed fishing by AFA CVs. In the GOA, many of the sideboards amounts cannot support a directed fishery by the AFA CVs that are subject to the sideboard limits. A list of the GOA species or species groups with sideboard limits that are proposed to be closed in regulation to directed fishing by AFA CVs is provided in Table 2-7 of the Analysis, while Table 2-8 of the Analysis lists those sideboard limits that will remain open to directed fishing because the sideboard limits for those species have been sufficient and likely will remain sufficient to support a directed fishery by AFA CVs.

    For AFA C/Ps in the BSAI, many of the BSAI groundfish harvesting sideboards are also not open for directed fishing, for reasons similar to the management of AFA CVs in the BSAI. First, many of the sideboard limits are insufficient to support a directed fishery by the AFA C/Ps that are subject to the sideboard limit. In addition, some sideboards for AFA C/Ps are not available for directed fishing because the species is fully allocated to the Amendment 80 Program (e.g., flathead sole, rock sole, Western AI Atka mackerel) or because there are no PSC limits apportioned to support directed fishing. A list of the BSAI species or species groups with sideboard limits that are proposed to be closed in regulation to directed fishing by AFA C/Ps is provided in Table 2-9 of the Analysis, while Table 2-10 of the Analysis lists those sideboard limits that will remain open to directed fishing because the sideboard limits for those species have been sufficient and likely will remain sufficient to support a directed fishery by AFA C/Ps.

    As explained earlier, the CR Program regulations establish sideboard limits to restrict the ability of non-AFA crab vessels to target groundfish species and species groups in the GOA. Since implementation of the CR Program sideboard limits in 2006, the only sideboard limits large enough to support directed fishing have been the Western and Central GOA Pacific cod pot catcher vessel sideboard limits, and in some years the Western GOA Pacific cod pot catcher/processor sideboard limit. All other sideboard limits have been closed for directed fishing because they are not sufficient to provide for a directed fishery by crab vessels. A list of the GOA sideboard limits that would be replaced with a prohibition on directed fishing is provided in Table 2-11 of the Analysis, while Table 2-12 shows sideboard limits for those Western and Central GOA Pacific cod pot catcher vessels that would not be affected by the proposed action and that likely would remain open for directed fishing.

    In both the BSAI and GOA, many of the sideboard limits are not large enough to support a directed fishery by AFA CVs and C/Ps and crab vessels, which means that NMFS cannot actively manage those fisheries to ensure a timely closure and prevent retention in excess of the TAC set for that year. It is highly unlikely that the TACs of any of the sideboard species would increase significantly enough in the foreseeable future to result in a large enough sideboard limit to allow directed fishing of the sideboard allowance. Because factors such as TAC are not likely to change significantly enough to provide AFA vessels and crab vessels with groundfish sideboard limits sufficient to support a directed fishery, NMFS has determined it would be more efficient to close those sideboard limits to directed fishing in regulation, rather than continuing to specify those sideboard limits and close them to directed fishing every year through the annual harvest specifications.

    Accordingly, under Action 1, this proposed rule would implement the Council's recommendation (Option 1 to Alternative 2, the preferred alternative) to:

    • Prohibit directed fishing for most AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits by adding Tables 54, 55, and 56 to 50 CFR part 679 to list the AFA Program sideboard species prohibited to directed fishing; and by adding Table 11 to 50 CFR part 680 to list the CR Program sideboard species prohibited to directed fishing;

    • remove a regulation (§ 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B)) establishing the annual Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps; and

    • make other minor regulatory amendments necessary to establish directed fishery closures for specific species and species groups in regulation.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.20(d) by adding a new paragraph to prohibit directed fishing for the species sideboard limits listed in proposed Tables 54, 55, and 56 to 50 CFR part 679. Existing regulations associated with establishing sideboard directed fishing allowances would be retained, as they are needed for those species or species groups that would continue to have sideboard limits established through the annual harvest specifications. In addition, § 679.64(a)(3) would be revised to add a paragraph describing that proposed Table 54 to 50 CFR part 679 contains the BSAI species or species groups prohibited for directed fishing by AFA C/Ps. Similarly, § 679.64(b)(5) would be revised to add a paragraph that describes proposed Tables 55 and 56 to 50 CFR part 679. These two tables list the species or species groups for which directed fishing by AFA CVs is prohibited in the BSAI and GOA, respectively.

    Regarding the Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps, this proposed rule would remove § 679.64(a)(1)(ii)(B). That regulation specifies the AFA C/Ps Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit of 11.5 percent of the annual Central AI TAC, which is based on the sideboard limit set forth in Section 211(b)(2)(C)(i)) of the AFA. However, since the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program in 2008, the percentage of the initial TAC for the sector in which AFA C/Ps are authorized to participate (the BSAI trawl limited access sector) is only 10 percent. Therefore, the maximum amount of the Central AI Atka mackerel TAC available to AFA C/Ps under regulations implementing Amendment 80 (10 percent) is less than the sideboard limit established for AFA C/Ps when the AFA Program was implemented in 2000 (11.5 percent). Since the BSAI trawl limited access sector allocation is less than the sideboard limit, the sideboard limit no longer constrains AFA C/Ps. NMFS believes that the proposed revision to remove the regulation that specifies the sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel for AFA C/Ps is consistent with Section 211 of the AFA. Section 211(a) of the AFA allows the Council to recommend, and NMFS to approve, conservation and management measures necessary to protect other fisheries from the adverse impacts caused by the AFA. The current allocation of Atka mackerel available to AFA C/Ps (10 percent of the TAC) is effectively a conservation and management measure that protects participants in other non-AFA fisheries by limiting the amount of Atka mackerel that AFA C/Ps can potentially harvest to less than 11.5 percent of the TAC available to AFA C/Ps under the existing sideboard limit established under Section 211(b)(2)(C)(i) of the AFA. Under the proposed rule, NMFS would no longer specify the AFA C/P sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel; however, that fishery would remain open to directed fishing, and AFA C/Ps as part of the BSAI trawl limited access sector would remain constrained under existing regulations to harvesting up to the 10 percent of the allocation to the BSAI trawl limited access sector (50 CFR 679.91(c)(2)(ii) and Table 33 to 50 CFR part 679).

    For the CR Program sideboard limits, this proposed rule would revise § 680.22(e) to describe the permanent prohibition for directed fishing for most GOA groundfish species by non-AFA crab vessels in the GOA. This paragraph would include a reference to proposed Table 11 to 50 CFR part 680, which lists the species or species groups for which directed fishing for sideboard limits is prohibited.

    Action 2: Removal of the AFA Inshore Cooperative Catch Report From Regulation

    In addition to the Council's recommendation for revising the management of AFA Program and CR Program sideboard limits, NMFS also proposes to remove the requirements for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report described in regulations at §§ 679.5(o) and 679.62(b)(3). This report is no longer necessary to manage the AFA inshore pollock allocations. NMFS has direct and immediate access to observer and landings data to track catch by the cooperatives and does not need the information submitted by the cooperatives to monitor the Bering Sea pollock fisheries. Eliminating this weekly reporting requirement will reduce the burden on the designated representatives of AFA inshore cooperatives to prepare and submit these reports to NMFS weekly, will reduce costs to the members of the AFA inshore cooperatives to pay for the preparation and submission of these weekly reports, and will reduce the time and costs that NMFS incurs in processing and reviewing the weekly reports.

    Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, the GOA FMP, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

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

    Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

    An RIR was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended the regulatory revisions in this proposed rule based on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis related to the impact of this proposed rule on small entities are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    This IRFA was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603), to describe the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. An IRFA describes why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Descriptions of this proposed rule, its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble and are not repeated here.

    Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed Rule

    NMFS has determined that vessels that are members of a fishing cooperative are affiliated when classifying them for the RFA analyses. In making this determination, NMFS considered the Small Business Administration's (SBA) “principles of affiliation” at 13 CFR 121.103. Specifically, in § 121.103(f), SBA refers to “[a]ffiliation based on identity of interest,” which states affiliation may arise among two or more persons with an identity of interest. Individuals or firms that have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests (such as family members, individuals or firms with common investments, or firms that are economically dependent through contractual or other relationships) may be treated as one party with such interests aggregated. If business entities are affiliated, then the threshold for identifying small entities is applied to the group of affiliated entities rather than on an individual entity basis.

    There are 93 active AFA catcher vessels that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA, 17 active catcher/processors that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI, and 95 CR Program active catcher vessels that are restricted by sideboard limits in the GOA. These vessels are members of an AFA cooperative for Bering Sea pollock or a Bering Sea Crab Cooperative and are therefore considered to be large entities via their cooperative affiliation. Other than these vessels, there are 18 vessels that are restricted by sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA and that are not members of an AFA or crab cooperative. These 18 vessels may be considered small entities under the RFA because they likely have combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11.0 million.

    This proposed rule would directly regulate those vessel operators that are restricted by AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA, and AFA inshore cooperatives that are required to submit an AFA inshore cooperative weekly report. All persons required to submit an AFA inshore cooperative weekly report are also subject to sideboard limits under the AFA Program. Therefore, the number of directly regulated entities under this proposed rule is equal to the number of vessel operators restricted by AFA Program and CR Program groundfish sideboard limits in the BSAI and GOA. The thresholds applied to determine if an entity or group of entities are “small” under the RFA depend on the industry classification for the entity or entities. Businesses classified as primarily engaged in commercial fishing are considered small entities if they have combined annual gross receipts not in excess of $11.0 million for all affiliated operations worldwide (81 FR 4469; January 26, 2016). Businesses classified as primarily engaged in fish processing are considered small entities if they employ 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all affiliated operations worldwide. Since at least 1993, NMFS Alaska Region has considered catcher/processors to be predominantly engaged in fish harvesting rather than fish processing. Under this classification, the threshold of $11.0 million in annual gross receipts is appropriate.

    Based on this analysis, NMFS preliminarily determines that there are 18 entities that may be considered small and would be affected by this proposed rule. However, due to the complexity of the affiliation among the entities and the overlay of affiliation due to ownership and affiliation based on the contractual relationship among members of cooperatives, it is not certain these 18 entities are small entities, as defined by the RFA, that could be affected by this proposed rule. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this IRFA, which provides potentially affected small entities an opportunity to provide comments on this IRFA. NMFS will evaluate any comments received on the IRFA and may consider certifying under section 605 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 605) that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities prior to publication of the final rule.

    The only potential adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities that have been identified for this proposed rule are if the ABC and corresponding TAC for the species for which directed fishing would be closed significantly increased. With respect to potential changes in ABCs and TACs, NMFS does not anticipate that there will be significant increases to the groundfish species' ABCs and TACs associated with this action to the degree that the increases could allow for a directed fishery for a given species. Sideboard limits represent a very small proportion of a given annual groundfish TAC. If a particular species' biomass, ABC, and TAC increased to a level that could potentially allow for a directed fishery for that species' sideboard limit, such a substantial change in biomass and harvest control rules would also give rise to other potential management considerations beyond just increasing sideboard limits. With regards to the potential that the Amendment 80 Program allocations of groundfish (specifically Central AI Atka mackerel) could change, NMFS considers that prospect highly unlikely. The AFA and Amendment 80 fishery management programs in the BSAI are currently stable. The groundfish allocations established by these programs have not been modified since they were implemented, and there are no foreseeable changes in the allocations established under the Amendment 80 Program. If such allocative changes were proposed, the Council and NMFS would conduct a comprehensive analysis as part of any potential future action of how such changes could affect the sideboard limits associated with this action.

    Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This proposed rule would remove a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for the submittal of AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch reports. Such reports are no longer necessary to assist NMFS with managing the AFA inshore pollock fisheries, as the information in such reports has been superseded by more contemporary, electronic data reporting. The proposal to remove these requirements is anticipated to reduce the cost in total to the public by approximately $8,475 per year, and is anticipated to reduce costs to NMFS by approximately $5,400 per year.

    No small entity is subject to reporting requirements that are in addition to or different from the requirements that apply to all directly regulated entities.

    Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed rule and existing Federal rules has been identified.

    Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    No significant alternatives were identified that would accomplish the stated objectives for streamlining the management of AFA and CR Program sideboard limits by prohibiting in regulation certain species sideboard limits, are consistent with applicable statutes, and that would reduce costs to potentially affected small entities more than the proposed rule. The Council and NMFS considered two alternatives for action one of this proposed rule. Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. This alternative would continue the annual establishment of the sideboard limits for all the species listed in proposed Tables 54, 55, and 56 to 50 CFR part 679, as well as proposed Table 11 to 50 CFR part 680, and would maintain the sideboard limit for Central AI Atka mackerel for AFA C/Ps. These sideboard species have insufficient sideboard limits to support directed fishing, are fully allocated to other catch share programs, or for a variety of other reasons are closed to directed fishing. NMFS would continue to prohibit directed fishing for these sideboard fisheries via the annual harvest specifications, except for the Central AI Atka mackerel sideboard limit for AFA C/Ps.

    Alternative 2, along with Option 1 (the preferred alternative), provides the greatest economic benefits. The primary economic benefit of this proposed rule is to reduce NMFS's administrative burden of managing most AFA Program and CR Program sideboards through the annual harvest specifications process. Implementation of Alternative 2 through this proposed rule would streamline the preparation of the BSAI and GOA annual harvest specifications, simplify NMFS's annual programming changes to the groundfish catch accounting system, and reduce the future costs of publishing the annual harvest specifications in the Federal Register each year. The economic effects on fishery participants that are affected by this proposed action primarily are neutral. The removal of the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report requirement would, however, provide a modest economic benefit for AFA inshore cooperatives.

    Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule addresses a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0401 (AFA Reports). The proposed rule would not add any new information collection requirements, but would remove the regulatory requirement for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report. The public reporting burden for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The proposal to remove this collection of information requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval.

    Public comment is sought regarding the proposal to remove the requirement for the AFA inshore cooperative weekly catch report and the burden hour estimate for this report. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region (see ADDRESSES) and to OIRA by email to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    50 CFR Part 680

    Alaska, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 679 and part 680 as follows:

    PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

    § 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R) [Amended]
    2. In § 679.5, remove and reserve paragraph (o). 3. In § 679.20, add paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(D) to read as follows:
    § 679.20 General limitations.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    (D) Species or species groups for which directed fishing for sideboard limits by AFA vessels is prohibited are listed in Tables 54, 55, and 56 to this part.

    § 679.62 Inshore sector cooperative allocation program [Amended]
    4. In § 679.62, remove paragraph (b)(3). 5. In § 679.64, a. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A); b. Remove paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B); c. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) as paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B); and d. Revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 679.64 Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) Bering Sea subarea and Eastern Aleutian Islands, zero; and

    (3) How will AFA catcher/processor sideboard limits be managed? (i) The Regional Administrator will manage groundfish harvest limits and PSC bycatch limits for AFA catcher/processors through directed fishing closures in fisheries established under paragraph (a)(1) of this section in accordance with the procedures set out in §§ 679.20(d)(1)(iv) and 679.21(b)(4)(iii).

    (ii) Directed fishing for the BSAI groundfish sideboard limits listed in Table 54 of this part is prohibited.

    (b) * * *

    (5) How will catcher vessel sideboard limits be managed? (i) The Regional Administrator will manage groundfish harvest limits and PSC bycatch limits for AFA catcher vessels using directed fishing closures according to the procedures set out at §§ 679.20(d)(1)(iv) and 679.21(d)(7) and (e)(3)(v).

    (ii) Directed fishing for the BSAI groundfish sideboard limits listed in Table 55 of this part and the GOA groundfish sideboard limits listed in Table 56 of this part is prohibited.

    6. Add and reserve Table 52 to part 679. 7. Add and reserve Table 53 to part 679. 8. Add Table 54 to part 679 to read as follows: Table 54—BSAI Species and Species Groups for Which Directed Fishing for Sideboard Limits by Listed AFA Catcher/Processors and Catcher/Processors Designated on Listed AFA Catcher/Processor Permits Is Prohibited Species or species group Management area or subarea Sablefish, trawl gear Bering Sea (BS) subarea of the BSAI. Aleutian Islands (AI). Atka mackerel BS/Eastern Aleutian District. Western Aleutian District. Rock sole BSAI. Greenland turbot Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. AI. Arrowtooth flounder BSAI. Kamchatka flounder BSAI. Flathead sole BSAI. Alaska plaice BSAI. Other flatfish BSAI. Pacific ocean perch Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. Eastern Aleutian District. Central Aleutian District. Western Aleutian District. Northern rockfish BSAI. Shortraker rockfish BSAI. Rougheye rockfish Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI/Eastern Aleutian District. Central Aleutian District/Western Aleutian District. Other rockfish BS. AI. Skates BSAI. Sculpins BSAI. Sharks BSAI. Octopuses BSAI. 9. Add Table 55 to part 679 to read as follows: Table 55—BSAI Species and Species Groups for Which Directed Fishing for Sideboard Limits by Non-Exempt AFA Catcher Vessels Is Prohibited Species or species group Management area or subarea Gear type Pacific cod BSAI Jig. Hook-and-line catcher vessel ≥60 ft. Hook-and-line catcher vessel ≤60 ft. Pot. Sablefish, trawl gear Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI All. AI All. Atka mackerel BSAI All. Rock sole BSAI All. Greenland turbot BS All. AI All. Arrowtooth flounder BSAI All. Kamchatka flounder BSAI All. Alaska plaice BSAI All. Other flatfish BSAI All. Flathead sole BSAI All. Pacific ocean perch BS All. Eastern Aleutian District All. Central Aleutian District All. Western Aleutian District All. Northern rockfish BSAI All. Shortraker rockfish BSAI All. Rougheye rockfish Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI/Eastern Aleutian District All. Central Aleutian District/Western Aleutian District All. Other rockfish Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI All. AI All. Skates BSAI All. Sculpins BSAI All. Sharks BSAI All. Octopuses BSAI All. 10. Add Table 56 to part 679 to read as follows: Table 56—GOA Species and Species Groups for Which Directed Fishing for Sideboard Limits by Non-Exempt AFA Catcher Vessels Is Prohibited Species or species group Management or regulatory area and
  • processing component
  • (if applicable)
  • Pacific cod Eastern GOA, inshore component. Eastern GOA, offshore component. Western GOA. Sablefish Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Shallow-water flatfish Eastern GOA. Deep-water flatfish Western GOA. Rex sole Western GOA. Eastern GOA. Arrowtooth flounder Western GOA. Eastern GOA. Flathead sole Western GOA. Eastern GOA. Pacific ocean perch Western GOA. Northern rockfish Western GOA. Shortraker rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Dusky rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Rougheye rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Demersal shelf rockfish Southeast Outside District. Thornyhead rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Other rockfish Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Atka mackerel GOA. Western GOA. Big skates Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Longnose skates Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Other skates GOA. Sculpins GOA. Sharks GOA. Octopuses GOA.
    PART 680—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 11. The authority citation for part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L., 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

    12. In § 680.22, revise paragraph (e)(1)(i) to read as follows:
    § 680.22 Sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, annual sideboard harvest limits for each groundfish species, except fixed-gear sablefish, will be established by multiplying the sideboard ratios calculated under paragraph (d) of this section by the proposed and final TACs in each area for which a TAC is specified. If a TAC is further apportioned by season, the sideboard harvest limit also will be apportioned by season in the same ratio as the overall TAC. The resulting harvest limits expressed in metric tons will be published in the annual GOA groundfish harvest specification notices, except for those species for which directed fishing for sideboard limits is prohibited (see paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section and Table 11 to this part).

    13. Add Table 11 to part 680 to read as follows: Table 11—Gulf of Alaska Species and Species Groups for Which Directed Fishing for Sideboard Limits by Non-AFA Crab Vessels Is Prohibited Species or species group Management area or regulatory area, processing component (if applicable), and gear type (if applicable) Pollock Shumagin (Management Area 610). Chirikof (Management Area 620). Kodiak (Management Area 630). Western Yakutat District. Southeast Outside District. Area Gear, vessel type Pacific cod Western GOA Jig.
  • Hook-and-line Catcher Vessel.
  • Trawl Catcher Vessel.
  • Central GOA Jig.
  • Hook-and-line Catcher Vessel.
  • Trawl Catcher Vessel.
  • Eastern GOA, inshore component. Eastern GOA, offshore component. Sablefish, trawl gear Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Shallow-water flatfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Deep-water flatfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Rex sole Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Arrowtooth Flounder Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Flathead sole Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Pacific ocean perch Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Northern rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Shortraker rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Dusky rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Rougheye rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Demersal shelf rockfish Southeast Outside District. Thornyhead rockfish Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Other rockfish Western/Central GOA.
  • Eastern GOA.
  • Atka mackerel GOA. Big skates Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Longnose skates Western GOA. Central GOA. Eastern GOA. Other skates GOA. Sculpins GOA. Sharks GOA. Octopuses GOA.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17538 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    83 159 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meetings of the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Arkansas Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday September 7, 2018 from 1-5 p.m. Central time. The Committee will hear public testimony as part of their study of civil rights and mass incarceration in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Friday September 7, 2018 from 1-5 p.m. Central.

    ADDRESSES:

    Holiday Inn Presidential, 600 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement, beginning at 4 p.m. To request individual accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend, please contact the Regional Programs Unit at 312-353-8311 at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    The Committee will examine the State's growing prison population, and the disproportionately high incarceration rate of individuals of color relative to the general population. The Committee will consider state and local policies and practices which may contribute to these disparities, and seek alternative policies and practices with the demonstrated potential to address such concerns. The Committee will hear testimony from formerly incarcerated individuals, community members, advocates, academics, and public officials.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Arkansas Advisory Committee link (https://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=236). Click on “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Opening Remarks and Introductions (1:00 p.m.-1:15 p.m.) Panel 1: Community & Advocacy (1:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.) Panel 2: Academic & Legal (2:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m.) Open Forum (4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) Closing Remarks (5:00 p.m.) Dated: August 13, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17705 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday September 5, 2018, at 11:30 a.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday September 5, 2018, at 11:30 a.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 877-857-6177, Conference ID: 5630719.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the call in information listed above. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement to the Committee as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 South Dearborn St., Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Roll Call Discussion: Civil Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: August 10, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17643 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Ohio Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via teleconference on Friday September 14, 2018, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. EDT for the purpose of hearing testimony regarding civil rights and education funding in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday September 14, 2018, from 9 a.m.-4 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Cleveland State University, Fenn Tower, 1938 E 24th Street, Cleveland, OH 44115.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement, beginning at 4 p.m. To request individual accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend, please contact the Regional Programs Unit at 312-353-8311 at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 230 S Dearborn, Suite 2120, Chicago, IL 60604. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    The Committee intends to examine Ohio's school funding formula and its impact on access to education on the basis of color, race, sex, religion, national origin, and/or disability status. The Committee will examine (a) the extent to which the state's school funding formula may contribute to a disparate impact on educational access and outcomes on the basis of these federally protected categories, (b) if the policies and practices are reasonably necessary to the education success of the students or other aspects of the education system, and (c) alternative policies and practices with the demonstrated potential to address such concerns. The Committee will hear testimony from community members, advocates, academics, public and private school administrators, and government officials.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Ohio Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=268). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Opening Remarks and Introductions (9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m.) Panel 1: Academic (9:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.) Panel 2: Private Schools & Public Charter Schools (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.) Break (12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m.) Panel 3: Public Schools & Community (1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m.) Open Forum (3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.) Closing Remarks (4:00 p.m.) Dated: August 13, 2018. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17706 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-877] Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstance Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of stainless steel flanges from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) during the period of investigation (POI) July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benito Ballesteros or Christian Llinas, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7425 or (202) 482-4877, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 28, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of stainless steel flanges from India.1 The Coalition of American Flange Producers and its individual members, Core Pipe Products, Inc. and Maass Flange Corporation (collectively, the petitioners), Chandan Steel Limited (Chandan), Bebitz Flanges Works Pvt. Ltd. (Bebitz) and Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Echjay) (collectively, the respondents) filed case and rebuttal briefs. A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 register users at http://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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 13246 (March 28, 2018) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Stainless Steel Flanges from India,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum or IDM).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is stainless steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to Commerce's regulations,3 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).4 As no interested parties submitted timely comments on the scope of this investigation, we made no changes to the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

    3See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    4See Initiation Notice.

    Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, between April and May 2018, Commerce verified the sales and cost data reported by Chandan. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, Commerce determined the Echjay single entity's 5 and the Bebitz/Viraj single entity's 6 margin on the basis of adverse facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B)-(C) and 776(b) of the Act. For further information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    5 The Echjay single entity is comprised of Echjay Forgings Pvt Limited, Echjay Industries Private Limited, Echjay Forging Industries Private Limited, and Spire Industries Pvt. Limited.

    6 The Bebitz/Viraj single entity is comprised of Bebitz Flanges Works Private Limited, Viraj Profiles Limited (Viraj), Flanschen werk Bebitz GmbH (FBG), Bebitz USA, Inc. (Bebitz USA), and Viraj USA, Inc. (Viraj USA).

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our finding at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    For the final determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of stainless steel flanges from Chandan, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, the Echjay single entity, and companies covered by the “all others” rate. Thus, pursuant to section 735(a)(3) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206, we find that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by Chandan, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, the Echjay single entity, and “all others.” For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at “Critical Circumstances.”

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Because the final rate determined for the Echjay single entity and the Bebitz/Viraj single entity is based entirely on adverse facts available, we, therefore, based the “all others” rate on the rate calculated for Chandan. For a discussion of this methodology, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination Margins

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Estimated
  • weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash
  • deposit rate
  • (adjusted for
  • offset(s))
  • (percent)
  • Chandan 19.16 14.29 Echjay single entity 145.25 140.38 Bebitz/Viraj single entity 145.25 145.25 All Others 19.16 14.29
    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed with respect to Chandan's weighted-average dumping margin to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). With respect to the Echjay single entity and the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, because Commerce relied on adverse facts available to determine the rate for these entities and selected the highest petition margin as the adverse facts available rate, there are no calculations to disclose.7

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 7-8.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    For entries made by Chandan, the Bebitz/Viraj single entity, the Echjay single entity, and companies covered by the “all others” rate, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, because we continue to find that critical circumstances exist, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of stainless steel flanges from India which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 28, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. Commerce normally adjusts cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding, when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Any such adjusted cash deposit rate may be found in the “Final Determination Margins” section, above.

    Additionally, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/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 subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 352.210(c).

    Dated: August 10, 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. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain forged stainless-steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless-steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term “stainless steel” used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements.

    Unfinished stainless-steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless-steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes.

    The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351.

    The country of origin for certain forged stainless-steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless-steel flanges.

    Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Affiliation and Collapsing VI. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VII. Use of Adverse Facts Available VIII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Application of Total AFA for Bebitz/Viraj single entity Comment 2: Collapsing of Echjay and its Affiliates, and Application of Total AFA to the Echjay Single Entity Comment 3: Product Characteristics used in the CONNUM Methodology Comment 4: Application of Partial AFA for Packing Costs Comment 5: Home Market Sales Viability Comment 6: Credit Expenses Comment 7: Clarification of the Scope of the Order Comment 8: Import Duties Comment 9: G&A Expense Ratio Calculation Comment 10: Antidumping Duty Cash Deposit Rate offset by the Countervailing Duty Export Subsidy Rate IX. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-17688 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Rescission of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 16, 2018, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) issued a final judgment in Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd., LLC. v. United States ordering the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to proceed with Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd.'s (Muyun Wood) new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final rescission of the new shipper review.

    DATES:

    Applicable beginning July 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aleksandras Nakutis, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3147.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Muyun Wood is a Chinese producer/exporter of wood flooring. On June 13, 2015, Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd.'s (Muyun Wood) requested a new shipper review. On July 29, 2015, Commerce initiated the requested new shipper review covering the period of December 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.1

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2014-2015, 80 FR 45192 (July 29, 2015).

    On October 26, 2016, Commerce issued the Final Rescission. 2 In the Final Rescission, Commerce determined that Muyun's single sale was not bona fide and, accordingly, rescinded its new shipper review. Muyun Wood challenged Commerce's findings in the Final Rescission at the CIT.

    2See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews; 2015-2015, 81 FR 74393 (October 26, 2016) (Final Rescission).

    On December 11, 2017, the CIT remanded for Commerce to determine whether Muyun Wood's sale during the review period was bona fide. 3 In accordance with the Court's decision, Commerce reconsidered its previous analysis and continued to determine that Muyun Wood's single sale was non-bona fide. Specifically, Commerce considered the following factors weighed against finding Muyun's sale bona fide: (1) The price reported by Muyun Wood was significantly higher than the highest comparison sales price for identical merchandise reported during a contemporaneous period; (2) the evidence indicating that Muyun Wood's unaffiliated and new customer did not resell the entirety of the merchandise at question for a profit; and (3) the singular nature of the sale.

    3See Huzhou Muyun Wood Co. Ltd. v. United States, 41 CIT __, 279 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (CIT 2017).

    On July 16, 2018, the CIT held that Commerce's ultimate conclusion that the sale was not bona fide was not supported by substantial evidence and that the rescission of the new shipper review cannot be upheld.4 The CIT found that the totality of the circumstances do not support a finding that the sale was not bona fide, given that the sales quantity was typical, the expenses incurred were normal, the sale was made at arm's length, the payment timing was not atypical, and a substantial majority of the product was resold for a profit.5 The CIT entered judgment, ordering Commerce to proceed with Muyun Wood's new shipper review.

    4See Huzhou Muyun Wood Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2018 WL 3455350 (CIT July 16, 2018).

    5Id. at *8 (referring to the factors outlined at section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Commerce must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with Commerce's determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's July 16, 2018 final judgment, ordering Commerce to proceed with Muyun Wood's new shipper review, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Final Rescission. 6 This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

    6See MLWF Amended Final Determination, 79 FR 21509 (May 2, 2014) (MLWF Amended Final Determination).

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 9, 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. 2018-17562 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-878] Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of stainless steel flanges from India during the period of investigation January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Mullen or Chelsey Simonovich, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5260 or (202) 482-1979, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 23, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.1 A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 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 at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Affirmative and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 83 FR 3118 (January 23, 2018) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Flanges from India,” dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope Comments

    In Commerce's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope) in scope case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.3 No interested parties submitted timely scope comments. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    3See Memorandum, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated November 15, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are stainless steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by the parties, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decisions Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Verification

    Commerce conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of India and Echjay Forgings Private Limited (Echjay) between June 4 and June 8, 2018.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    If necessary information is not available on the record, or an interested party withholds information, fails to provide requested information in a timely manner, significantly impedes a proceeding by not providing information, or information provided cannot be verified, the Department will apply facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For purposes of this final determination, Commerce relied, in part, on facts available and, because certain respondents did not cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to our requests for information, we drew an adverse inference, where appropriate, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.4 A full discussion of our decision to rely on adverse facts available is presented in the “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    4See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties and the minor corrections presented, as well as additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations set forth in the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum and the Final Analysis Memorandum.5

    5See Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Memorandum, “Final Analysis Memorandum for Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    For the Preliminary Determination, Commerce found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of stainless steel flanges from Bebitz Flanges Works (Bebitz), Echjay, and all-other exporters/producers covered by the “all-others” rate.6 We did not modify our critical circumstances for the final determination. Thus, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Act, we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to subject merchandise produced or exported by Bebitz, Echjay, and “all-others.”

    6 See Preliminary Determination, 83 FR at 3118, 3119, and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 4-7.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for each exporter/producer of the subject merchandise individually investigated, i.e., Echjay and Bebitz. In accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the “all-others” rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, as well as rates based entirely on facts otherwise available. Where the rates for the individually investigated companies are all zero or de minimis, or determined entirely using facts otherwise available, section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act instructs Commerce to establish an “all-others” rate using “any reasonable method.”

    In this investigation, Commerce assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Bebitz. Therefore, the only rate that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Echjay. Consequently, the rate calculated for Echjay is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters.

    The final subsidy rates are as follows:

    7 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Bebitz Flanges Works: Viraj Profiles Limited.

    8 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Commerce has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Echjay Forgings Private Limited: Echjay Forging Industries Private Limited.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Bebitz Flanges Works Private Limited 7 256.16 Echjay Forgings Private Limited 8 4.92 All-Others 4.92
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any entries of merchandise under consideration from India that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 25, 2017, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication in the Federal Register of the Preliminary Determination. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after May 22, 2018, but to continue the suspension of liquidation on all entries from January 23, 2018, through May 21, 2018.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order and will require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    U.S. International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties such to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or, alternatively, conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is published pursuant to section 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: August 10, 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. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished (certain forged stainless steel flanges). Certain forged stainless steel flanges are generally manufactured to, but not limited to, the material specification of ASTM/ASME A/SA182 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. Certain forged stainless steel flanges are made in various grades such as, but not limited to, 304, 304L, 316, and 316L (or combinations thereof). The term “stainless steel” used in this scope refers to an alloy steel containing, by actual weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. Unfinished stainless steel flanges possess the approximate shape of finished stainless steel flanges and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial forging or like operations. These machining processes may include, but are not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing. Semi-finished stainless steel flanges are unfinished stainless steel flanges that have undergone some machining processes. The scope includes six general types of flanges. They are: (1) Weld neck, generally used in butt-weld line connection; (2) threaded, generally used for threaded line connections; (3) slip-on, generally used to slide over pipe; (4) lap joint, generally used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; (5) socket weld, generally used to fit pipe into a machine recession; and (6) blind, generally used to seal off a line. The sizes and descriptions of the flanges within the scope include all pressure classes of ASME B16.5 and range from one-half inch to twenty-four inches nominal pipe size. Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A351.

    The country of origin for certain forged stainless steel flanges, whether unfinished, semi-finished, or finished is the country where the flange was forged. Subject merchandise includes stainless steel flanges as defined above that have been further processed in a third country. The processing includes, but is not limited to, boring, facing, spot facing, drilling, tapering, threading, beveling, heating, or compressing, and/or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the stainless steel flanges.

    Merchandise subject to the investigation is typically imported under headings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). While HTS subheadings and ASTM specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memo I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of The Investigation IV. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances V. Subsidies Valuation Information VI. Benchmarks and Interest Rates VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: The Application of AFA to Bebitz Comment 2: SHIS Licenses Discovered at Verification Comment 3: Echjay's Reporting of the Provision of Stainless Steel, Billet, and Bar by SAIL for LTAR Comment 4: Whether Sufficient Information Exists to Calculate a Subsidy Rate for EFIPL Comment 5: Whether AAP, DDB, EPCGS, SHIS, and IEIS are Countervailable Comment 6: Whether the GOI Provided Sufficient Information for Certain Programs X. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2018-17696 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson or Joy Zhang AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1168, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 28, 2006, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India.1 On September 1, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India.2 On November 13, 2017, pursuant to timely requests from interested parties, Commerce published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to the following companies for the period of review September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017: Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited (Goldenpalm), Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. (Kokuyo), Lodha Offset Limited (Lodha), Lotus Global Private Limited (Lotus Global), Magic International Pvt. Ltd. (Magic International), Marisa International, Navneet Education Ltd. (Navneet), Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd. (Pioneer), PP Bafna Ventures Private Limited (PP Bafna), SAB International, SGM Paper Products, and Super Impex.3 On December 18, 2017, Goldenpalm timely withdrew its request for review.4 On January 25 and 26, 2018, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual members (AASPS or the petitioners) timely withdrew their request for review of SAB International and Super Impex, respectively.5 On January 29, 2018, SAB International and Super Impex also timely withdrew their respective requests for review.6 On February 5, and February 9, 2018, Lotus Global and PP Bafna timely withdrew their respective requests for review.7 No other party requested an administrative review of these particular companies.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 41595 (September 1, 2017).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 52268 (November 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    4See Goldenpalm's letter titled, “Lined Paper Products from India; A-533-843; Withdrawal of Request for Review by Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited,” dated December 18, 2017.

    5See the petitioners' letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of SAB International,” dated January 25, 2018. See also the petitioners' letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Super Impex,” dated January 26, 2018.

    6See SAB International's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of SAB International,” dated January 29, 2018. See also Super Impex's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Anti-Dumping Duty of Super Impex,” dated January 29, 2018.

    7See Letter from Lotus Global Private Limited to Commerce, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty of Lotus Global Private Limited,” dated February 5, 2018. See also Letter from PP Bafna to Commerce, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty of PP Bafna Ventures Private Limited,” dated February 9, 2018.

    Partial Rescission of the 2016-2017 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. All of the aforementioned withdrawal requests were timely submitted and no other interested party requested an administrative review of these particular companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and consistent with our practice,8 we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from India, in part, with respect to Goldenpalm, Super Impex, SAB International, Lotus Global, and PP Bafna. The administrative review will continue with respect to Kokuyo, Lodha, Magic International, Marisa International, Navneet, Pioneer, and SGM Paper Products.

    8See, e.g., Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781, 21783 (May 11, 2009); see also Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7218, 7218 (February 13, 2009).

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, Goldenpalm, Super Impex, SAB International, Lotus Global, and PP Bafna, antidumping duties shall be assessed on their entries of subject merchandise at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).

    Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce' presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under an 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/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 Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 10, 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. 2018-17692 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-895, A-583-861] Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) orders on low melt polyester staple fiber (low melt PSF) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) and Taiwan.

    DATES:

    Applicable August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado at (202) 482-4682 or Brittany Bauer at (202) 482-3860 (Korea); Rebecca Janz at (202) 482-2972 or Ajay Menon at (202) 482-1993 (Taiwan); AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 22, 2018, Commerce published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan.1 On August 6, 2018, the ITC notified Commerce of its affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of low melt PSF from Korea subject to Commerce's affirmative critical circumstances determination.2

    1See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 83 FR 29094 (June 22, 2018) (Korea Final Determination); and Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 83 FR 29099 (June 22, 2018).

    2See Letter from the ITC to the Hon. Gary Taverman, dated August 6, 2018. See also Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, 83 FR 39461 (August 9, 2018).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise subject to these orders is synthetic staple fibers, not carded or combed, specifically bi-component polyester fibers having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component (low melt PSF). The scope includes bi-component polyester staple fibers of any denier or cut length. The subject merchandise may be coated, usually with a finish or dye, or not coated.

    Low melt PSF is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 5503.20.0015. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    As stated above, on August 6, 2018, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan.3 The ITC also notified Commerce of its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of low melt PSF from Korea subject to Commerce's critical circumstances finding.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these AD orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Korea and Taiwan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    3Id.

    4Id.

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 2018, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    5See Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 4906 (February 2, 2018) (Korea Preliminary Determination); and Low Melt Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 83 FR 4903 (February 2, 2018) (Taiwan Preliminary Determination).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan. Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Huvis Corporation (Huvis) in the Korea Final Determination was zero, entries of shipments of subject merchandise both produced and exported by Huvis are not subject to suspension of liquidation or cash deposit requirements. Entries of subject merchandise exported to the United States by any other producer and exporter combination are not entitled to this exclusion from suspension of liquidation and are subject to the applicable cash deposit rates noted below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.6 The relevant all-others rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    6See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request Commerce to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan, we extended the four-month period to six months in both cases.7 Commerce's preliminary determinations were published on February 2, 2018. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on August 1, 2018. Pursuant to section 737(b) of the Act, the collection of cash deposits at the rates listed below will begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    7See Korea Preliminary Determination and Taiwan Preliminary Determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 1, 2018, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination regarding imports of low melt PSF from Korea, Commerce will instruct CBP to lift suspension and refund any cash deposits made to secure payment of estimated antidumping duties on subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 4, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determinations), but before February 2, 2018 (i.e., the date of publication of the preliminary determinations).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The estimated weighted-average AD margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Korea: Huvis Corporation 0.00 Toray Chemical Korea Inc 16.27 All Others 16.27 Taiwan: Far Eastern New Century Corporation 49.93 All Others 49.93
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the AD orders with respect to low melt PSF from Korea and Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

    Dated: August 9, 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. 2018-17691 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG399 Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a public meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee. This meeting will help to ensure that the interests of U.S. stakeholders in the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean are adequately represented at the Annual Meeting of the Organization. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee members and all other interested U.S. stakeholders are invited to attend.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 27, 2018, from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at National Marine Fisheries Service's Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Please notify Shannah Jaburek (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by August 22, 2018, if you plan to attend the meeting in person or remotely. The meeting will be accessible by webinar—instructions will be emailed to meeting participants who provide notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabethann Mencher by email at [email protected], or by phone at 301-427-8362; or Shannah Jaburek by email at [email protected], or by phone at 978-282-8456.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) is a regional fisheries management organization that coordinates scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tunas/marlins, whales and sedentary species (e.g., shellfish). NAFO was established in 1979 by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The United States acceded to the Convention in 1995, and has participated actively in NAFO since that time. In 2005, NAFO launched a reform effort to amend the Convention in order bring the Organization more in line with the principles of modern fisheries management. As a result of these efforts, the Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries entered into force in May 2017.

    NAFO currently has 12 Contracting Parties, including Canada, Cuba, Denmark (in respect of Faroe Islands and Greenland), European Union, France (in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon), Iceland, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Ukraine and the United States.

    Membership in the NCC is open to representatives from the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the States represented on those Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the fishing industry, the seafood processing industry, and others knowledgeable and experienced in the conservation and management of fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Members shall be appointed to a 2-year term and are eligible for reappointment. The NCC is exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. NCC members are invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the U.S. Commissioners and at such meetings are given an opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed programs of study and investigation, reports, recommendations, and regulations of issues relating to the Act and proceedings of NAFO. In addition, NCC members may attend all public meetings of the NAFO Commission and any other meetings to which they are invited.

    If you are interested in becoming a member of the NCC, please contact Elizabethann Mencher (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) for additional details.

    The NAFO Annual Meeting will be held September 17-21, 2018, in Tallinn, Estonia. Additional information about the meeting can be found at: https://www.nafo.int/Meetings/AM.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannah Jaburek (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by August 22, 2018.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. John Henderschedt, Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17684 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG419 Meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the proposed schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and approve work plans for their Commerce and Recreational Fisheries Subcommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be September 6, 2018, 1-3 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    There is no public access. Meeting is by conference call.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heidi Lovett; NOAA Fisheries Office of Policy; (301) 427-8034; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of MAFAC. The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The MAFAC charter and summaries of prior MAFAC meetings are located online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/partners#marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The Committee is convening to discuss and approve topics and work plans for their Commerce and Recreational Fisheries Subcommittees for the coming year. Other administrative matters may be considered. This date, time, and agenda are subject to change.

    Time and Date

    The meeting is scheduled for September 6, 2018, 1-3 p.m., Eastern Time by conference call and webinar. Access information for the public will be posted at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/partners/marine-fisheries-advisory-committee-meeting-materials-and-summaries by August 30, 2018.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett, (301) 427-8034 by August 24, 2018.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Jennifer L. Lukens, Federal Program Officer, Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17685 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management (OCM), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program.

    DATES:

    South Carolina Coastal Management Program Evaluation: The public meeting will be held on September 11, 2018, and written comments must be received on or before September 21, 2018.

    For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the program or reserve NOAA intends to evaluate by any of the following methods:

    Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in North Charleston, South Carolina. For the specific location, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or email comments [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, by phone at (240) 533-0730 or email comments [email protected] Copies of the previous evaluation findings and 2016-2020 Assessment and Strategy may be viewed and downloaded on the internet at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations. A copy of the evaluation notification letter and most recent progress report may be obtained upon request by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

    You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:

    Date: September 11, 2018.

    Time: 5:30 p.m., local time.

    Location: North Charleston City Hall, City Council Chambers, 2500 City Hall Lane, North Charleston, South Carolina.

    Written public comments must be received on or before September 21, 2018.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. John King, Chief, Business Operations Division, Office for Coastal Management. Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration
    [FR Doc. 2018-17612 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Mammals and Endangered Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of a permit amendment and a permit modification.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that permits or permit amendments have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: (301) 427-8401; fax: (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Skidmore at (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that requests for a permit or permit amendment had been submitted by the below-named applicants. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application and a complete description of the research, go to www.federalregister.gov and search on the permit number provided in the table below.

    Permit No. RIN Applicant Previous Federal Register notice Permit amendment issuance date 17273-02 0648-XC703 Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (Responsible Party: Julie Crocker) 78 FR 50395; August 19, 2013 July 10, 2018. 17557-01 0648-XD825 NMFS Marine Forensics Lab (Responsible Party: M. Katherine Moore) 80 FR 39411; July 9, 2015 July 10, 2018.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

    Authority: The requested permits have been issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), as applicable.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17694 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XG344 Marine Mammals; File No. 21938 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 (Responsible Party: Theophilus Brainerd, Ph.D.), has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on up to 33 species of cetaceans.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 17, 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. 21938 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. 21938 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:

    Shasta McClenahan or Jennifer Skidmore, (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.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The SEFSC is requesting a five-year permit to conduct cetacean research in U.S. and international waters of the western North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. The objectives of the research are to meet the mandates of the MMPA and ESA through the study of cetaceans: (1) Stock structure, size estimates, habitat, and geographic range; (2) movement, ranging patterns, and diving behavior; (3) vocalization patterns and the ambient acoustic environment; (4) reproductive status; (5) types and origin of prey; (6) levels of anthropogenic chemical contaminants, and (7) behaviors to certain anthropogenic activities. Up to 33 species of cetaceans may be taken during research including the following ESA-listed species: Blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), Gulf of Mexico Bryde's (B. edeni), North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis), sei (B. borealis), and sperm (Physeter microcephalus) whales. Cetaceans may be taken during vessel and aerial surveys, including unmanned aircraft systems for photo-identification, photogrammetry, above and underwater photography and videography, behavioral observations, passive acoustic recordings, biological sampling (exhaled air, feces, sloughed skin, and skin and blubber biopsies), and tagging (suction-cup, dart/barb, and fully-implantable tags). Annual take numbers by species and procedure can be found in the take table of the application.

    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: August 13, 2018. Julia Marie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17695 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Sustainment, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to the public Wednesday, September 12, 2018 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Acquisition University Packard Conference Center; 9820 Belvoir Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christen Goulding, (703) 805-5412 (Voice), (703) 805-5909 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Protocol Director, DAU, 9820 Belvoir Rd., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. Website: https://www.dau.mil/about/p/Board-of-Visitors. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The board will discuss items of on-going interest to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment with regard to the training and development of the Defense Acquisition Workforce.

    Agenda: 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Executive Session; 10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. DAU Update; 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Lunch; 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Future Focus; 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Board Remarks and Recommendations.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. However, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Caren Hergenroeder at 703-805-5134.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors. All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors until its next meeting.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Christen Goulding, 703-805-5412, [email protected]

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17693 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Correction AGENCY:

    General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On Friday, August 10, 2018, the Department of Defense published a notice titled “Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.” In that notice, the waiver language in the first paragraph of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section contains incorrect references to the Defense Business Board and an incorrect meeting date. This notice corrects those errors. All other information in the notice of August 10, 2018 remains the same.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on August 16, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Toppings, 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On Friday, August 10, 2018 (83 FR 39730-39731), DoD published a notice titled “Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting” that contained incorrect references to the Defense Business Board and an incorrect meeting date in the first paragraph of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. The corrected waiver language is included in its entirety in the next paragraph.

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its meeting on August 23, 2018. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17660 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) will take place.

    DATES:

    Day 1—Open to the public Tuesday, September 11, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Day 2—Open to the public Wednesday, September 12, 2018 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address of the open meeting is the Association of the United States Army Conference Center, 2425 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colonel Toya J. Davis, U.S. Army, (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350. Website: http://dacowits.defense.gov. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the website.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is for the DACOWITS to receive briefings and updates relating to their current work. The meeting will open with the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) giving a status update on the DACOWITS' requests for information. Day one will comprise five separate briefings from the DoD and Military Services on the following topics: Military Recruiting Strategies, Military Marketing Strategies, DoD Recruitable Population Demographics, Status of the United States Navy's Submarine Integration Efforts, and an update from the United States Marine Corps on the gender integration of Recruit Training. The second day of the meeting will open with a briefing from Military Services regarding their new Parental Leave Policies. This will be followed by a briefing from the National Guard Bureau on their Pregnancy and Parenthood Policies. Lastly the DACOWITS will propose and vote on their annual recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.

    Agenda: Tuesday, September 11, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.—Welcome, Introductions, and Announcements; Request for Information Status Update; Briefings and DACOWITS discussion on: Military Recruiting Strategies, Military Marketing Strategies, DoD Recruitable Population Demographics, Submarine Integration Efforts, and the integration of Marine Corps' Recruit Training. Wednesday, September 12, 2018, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.—Welcome and Announcements; Briefing and DACOWITS discussion on the Military Services' Parental Leave Policies and the National Guard Bureau's Pregnancy and Parenthood Policies; and the annual voting session.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, interested persons may submit a written statement to the DACOWITS. Individuals submitting a written statement must submit their statement no later than 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 4, 2018 to Mr. Robert Bowling (703) 697-2122 (Voice), 703-614-6233 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04J25-01, Alexandria, VA 22350. If a written statement is not received by Tuesday, September 4, 2018, prior to the meeting, which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the DACOWITS until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DACOWITS Chair and ensure they are provided to the members of the Committee.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Aaron T. Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17700 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Availability of the Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment Draft Environmental Assessment, Arlington, VA AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Norfolk District, on behalf of the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC), announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion Project and Associated Roadway Realignment project, for review and comment. The Draft EA evaluates the proposal to increase the cemetery's contiguous acreage, realign roadways, and maximize burial space by utilizing an area adjacent to the existing cemetery that includes the former Navy Annex site, located south of the existing cemetery, in Arlington, Virginia. The cemetery has been working with the owners and operators of the adjacent road network, Arlington County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, on a roadway realignment that supports the short- and long-term multimodal transportation system for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Arlington County.

    DATES:

    The Draft EA is available for a 30-day review period. Written comments will be accepted until the close of business on September 22, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public is invited to submit comments to Ms. Kathy Perdue, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Planning and Policy Branch, 803 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510 or via email: [email protected]. The Project title and the commenter's contact information should be included with submitted comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kathy Perdue, (757) 201-7218.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of the public involvement process, notice is hereby given by the USACE Norfolk District, on behalf of the ANC, of a public information meeting that will be held on August 22, 2018, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m., at the Sheraton Pentagon City Hotel, 900 S Orme Street, Arlington, VA 22204. The public information meeting will allow participants the opportunity to comment and ask questions on the Draft EA. Attendance at the public meeting is not necessary to provide comments. Written comments may also be given to the contact listed under ADDRESSES.

    The document is available for review at the following locations:

    (1) The USACE Norfolk District Arlington National Cemetery Southern Expansion website: http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Missions/Military-Construction/ANCSouthernExpansion/

    (2) The ANC website: https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/About/Policies-and-Public-Notices/Public-Notices

    (3) Copies at the following Arlington County, Virginia Public Libraries:

    a. Arlington County Central Library, 1015 N Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22201.

    b. Aurora Hills Branch Public Library, 735 South 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202.

    c. Columbia Pike Branch Public Library, 816 South Walter Reed Drive, Arlington, VA 22204.

    The ANC is the lead federal agency for this Project, and the USACE has prepared the draft NEPA document on its behalf, assisted by the HNTB Corporation. The following are serving as cooperating agencies during the NEPA process: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and Arlington County. The ANC and the USACE also considered the input of various stakeholder organizations and the public.

    ANC is located within the eastern boundary of Arlington County, in the northeastern corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and at the western terminus of Memorial Avenue, directly across the Arlington Memorial Bridge and the Potomac River from the District of Columbia (Washington, DC). ANC is our nation's most hallowed ground. This Army cemetery consists of 624 acres and is the final resting place of over 400,000 service members and their families. The proposed Southern Expansion site, bounded by Washington Boulevard (Route 27), I-395, the VDOT Maintenance Complex, the Foxcroft Heights neighborhood, and the ANC, involves approximately 70 acres among three landowners: ANC, Arlington County, and VDOT.

    Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is to establish a single contiguous parcel of land south of the cemetery by closing and relocating local roadways and developing the parcel to increase interment capacity and increase multimodal transportation capacity on Columbia Pike. The contiguous parcel would be created through the replacement of Southgate Road with a new South Nash Street, and realignment of Columbia Pike and the Columbia Pike/Washington Boulevard interchange (adjacent to the Pentagon). The existing Air Force Memorial (AFM) would be incorporated into the cemetery expansion, and the existing Operations Complex would be relocated south of Columbia Pike.

    Alternatives. The Draft EA considers a full range of alternatives that meet the Proposed Action's purpose and need, while avoiding and minimizing impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Alternatives were developed that leverage to varying degrees the Army-owned land south of Columbia Pike to increase contiguous space for burials and cemetery operational effectiveness. Alternatives considered in detail included: (1) Relocate Operations Complex Alternative (Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action); (2) Maintain Operations Complex with Tunnel Alternative; and (3) Maintain Operations Complex without Tunnel Alternative.

    Public Involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EA was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 23281) on April 20, 2016. A public NEPA scoping meeting was held on April 27, 2016, in Arlington County.

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the ANC, as the lead federal agency, has determined that the project does not have the potential to cause significant impacts on the human environment, and has developed the Draft EA to examine and assess the impacts of the Proposed Action.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17573 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Extension of Comment Period, Draft Waste Incidental To Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Washington AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the Federal Register a Notice of Availability of the Draft Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for Closure of Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site, Washington (Draft WIR Evaluation), which evaluates whether the stabilized tanks and ancillary structures in WMA C, as well as the residual material in these tanks and structures will meet the criteria in Section II.B.(2)(a) of DOE M. 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual at closure. The original public comment period was from June 4, 2018 through September 7, 2018. This notice announces an extension of the public comment period on the Draft WIR Evaluation through November 7, 2018; any comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practical.

    DATES:

    The comment period in the Notice of Availability, published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25657), is extended through November 7, 2018. Any comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practical.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments by email to [email protected] Alternately, written comments may also be sent by mail to: Mr. Jan Bovier, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354.

    The Draft WIR Evaluation is available on the internet at: https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/WasteManagementAreaC and is also publicly available for review at the following locations: U.S. DOE Public Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, phone: (202) 586-5955, or fax: (202) 586-0575; and U.S. DOE Public Reading Room located at 2770 University Drive, Consolidated Information Center (CIC), Room 101L, Richland, WA 99354, phone: (509) 372-7303.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jan Bovier by email at [email protected], by mail at U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection, P.O. Box 450, MSIN H6-60, Richland, WA 99354, or by phone at (509) 376-9630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 4, 2018, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of availability of the Draft WIR Evaluation for comment by States, Tribal Nations, and the public (83 FR 25657). The original public comment period was from June 4, 2018 through September 7, 2018.

    In response to several requests, DOE is extending the public comment period by 60 days, through November 7, 2018. DOE will consider comments received after that date to the extent practical.

    DOE will consider comments from States, Tribal Nations and the public, as well as NRC consultative recommendations, prior to finalizing DOE's analyses and prior to issuing a final WIR Evaluation. Based on the final WIR Evaluation, DOE may determine (in a WIR determination) whether the stabilized tanks, residuals and ancillary structures in WMA C at closure meet the criteria in Section II.B.(2)(a) of DOE M. 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, are not high-level radioactive waste, and are to be managed as low-level radioactive waste.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2018. Anne Marie White, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17687 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC18-18-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-545 and FERC-549c); Consolidated Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collections and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the requirements and burden of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collections of information are due October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC18-18-000) 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.

    Please reference the specific collection number and/or title in your comments.

    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:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note the two collections are distinct.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are 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 estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal)

    Title: FERC-545, Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal).

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0154.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-545 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: FERC-545 is required to implement sections 4, 5, and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), (15 U.S.C. 717c-717o, PL 75 688, 52 Stat. 822 and 830). NGA sections 4, 5, and 16 authorize the Commission to inquire into rate structures and methodologies and to set rates at a just and reasonable level. Specifically, a natural gas company must obtain Commission authorization for all rates and charges made, demanded, or received in connection with the transportation or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.

    Under the NGA, a natural gas company's rates must be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. The Commission may act under different sections of the NGA to effect a change in a natural gas company's rates. When the Commission reviews rate increases that a natural gas company has proposed, it is subject to the requirement of section 4(e) of the NGA. Under section 4(e), the natural gas company bears the burden of proving that its proposed rates are just and reasonable. On the other hand, when the Commission seeks to impose its own rate determination, it must do so in compliance with section 5(a) of the NGA. Under section 5, the Commission must first establish that its alternative rate proposal is both just and reasonable.

    Section 16 of the NGA states that the Commission “shall have the power to perform any and all acts, and to prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, rules, and regulations as it may find necessary or appropriate to carry out provisions of [the NGA].” In other words, section 16 of the NGA grants the Commission the power to define accounting, technical and trade terms, prescribe forms, statements, declarations or reports, and to prescribe rules and regulations.

    Pipelines adjust their tariffs to meet market and customer needs. The Commission's review of these proposed changes is required to ensure rates remain just and reasonable and that services are not provided in an unduly or preferential manner. The Commission's regulations in 18 CFR part 154 specify what changes are allowed and the procedures for requesting Commission approval.

    The Commission uses information in FERC-545 to examine rates, services, and tariff provisions related to natural gas transportation and storage services. The following filing categories are subject to FERC-545: (1) Tariff Filings—filings regarding proposed changes to a pipeline's tariff (including Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Modernization of Natural Gas Facilities filings in Docket No. PL15-1) and any related compliance filings; (2) Rate Filings—rate-related filings under NGA sections 4 and 5 and any related compliance filings and settlements; (3) Informational Reports; (4) Negotiated Rate and Non-Conforming Agreement Filings; and (6) Market-Based Rates for Storage Filings (Part 284.501-505). One-time compliance filings mandated in Order No. 587-W (Docket Nos. RM96-1-038 and RM14-2-003) and Order No. 801 (Docket No. RM14-21-000) are excluded from this data collection renewal.

    Type of Respondents: Natural gas pipelines under the jurisdiction of NGA.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:1 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    1 The Commission defines burden 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, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    2 The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in this section is based on the salary figures for May 2017 posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm#13-0000) and scaled to reflect benefits using the relative importance of employer costs in employee compensation from May 2017 (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:

    Computer and Mathematical (Occupation Code: 15-0000), $63.25.

    Economist (Occupation Code: 19-3011), $71.98.

    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000), $143.68.

    Accountants and Auditors: 13-2011), $56.59.

    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is calculated weighting each of the aforementioned wage categories as follows: $63.25 (0.05) + $71.98 (0.3) + $143.68 (0.6) + $56.59 (0.05) = $113.79. The Commission rounds it to $114/hour.

    FERC-545: Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal) Number of
  • respondents
  • Average
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden and cost per response 2 Total annual burden hours and total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4 ) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Tariff Filings 124 2.597 322 211 hrs.; $24,054 67,947 hrs.; $7,745,958 $62,467 Rate Filings 17 1.412 24 354 hrs.; $40,356 8,497 hrs.; $968,658 56,980 Informational Reports 101 2.347 237 235 hrs.; $26,790 55,706 hrs.; $6,350,484 62,876 Negotiated Rates & Non-Conforming Agreement Filings 65 9.923 645 233 hrs.; $26,562 150,285 hrs.; $17,132,490 263,577 Market-Base Rates for Storage Filings 4 1 4 230 hrs.; $26,220 920 hrs.; $104,880 26,220 Total 1,232 283,355 hrs.; $32,302,470
    FERC-549C, Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0174.

    Abstract: The business practice standards under FERC-549C are required to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general authority in sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),3 and sections 311, 501, and 504 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).4 The Commission adopted these business practice standards in order to update and standardize the natural gas industry's business practices and procedures in addition to improving the efficiency of the gas market and the means by which the gas industry conducts business across the interstate pipeline grid.

    3 15 U.S.C. 717c-717w.

    4 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432.

    In various orders since 1996, the Commission has adopted regulations to standardize the business practices and communication methodologies of interstate natural gas pipelines proposed by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) in order to create a more integrated and efficient pipeline industry.5 Generally, when and if NAESB-proposed standards (e.g., consensus standards developed by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ) 6 ) are approved by the Commission, the Commission incorporates them by reference into its approval. The process of standardizing business practices in the natural gas industry began with a Commission initiative to standardize electronic communication of capacity release transactions. The outgrowth of the initial Commission standardization efforts produced working groups composed of all segments of the natural gas industry and, ultimately, the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB), a consensus organization open to all members of the gas industry was created. GISB was succeeded by NAESB.

    5 This series of orders began with the Commission's issuance of Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,038 (1996).

    6 An accredited standards organization under the auspices of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

    NAESB is a voluntary non-profit organization comprised of members from the retail and wholesale natural gas and electric industries. NAESB's mission is to take the lead in developing standards across these industries to simplify and expand electronic communication and to streamline business practices. NAESB's core objective is to facilitate a seamless North American marketplace for natural gas, as recognized by its customers, the business community, industry participants, and regulatory bodies. NAESB has divided its efforts among four quadrants including two retail quadrants, a wholesale electric quadrant, and the WGQ. The NAESB WGQ standards are a product of this effort. Industry participants seeking additional or amended standards (to include principles, definitions, standards, data elements, process descriptions, and technical implementation instructions) must submit a request to the NAESB office, detailing the change, so that the appropriate process may take place to amend the standards.

    Failure to collect the FERC-549C data would prevent the Commission from monitoring and properly evaluating pipeline transactions and/or meeting statutory obligations under both the NGA and NGPA.

    Type of Respondent: Natural gas pipelines under the jurisdictions of NGA and NGPA.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    7 The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in this section is based on the salary figures for May 2017 posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm#13-0000) and scaled to reflect benefits using the relative importance of employer costs in employee compensation from May 2017 (available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:

    Petroleum Engineer (Occupation Code: 17-2051), $71.62.

    Computer Systems Analysts (Occupation Code: 15-1120), $46.26.

    Legal (Occupation Code: 23-0000), $143.68.

    Economist (Occupation Code: 19-3011), $71.98.

    The average hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is calculated weighting each of the aforementioned wage categories as follows: $71.62 (0.3) + $143.68 (0.3) + $46.26 (0.15) + $71.98 (0.25) = $89.52. The Commission rounds it to $90/hour.

    FERC-549C: Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Number of
  • respondents
  • Average
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average burden and cost per response 7 Total annual burden hours and total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 165 2.96 490 96 hrs.; $8,640 47,040 hrs.; $4,233,600 $25,658
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17656 Filed 8-15-18; 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: EC18-133-000.

    Applicants: Union Electric Company, TG High Prairie, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Union Electric Company, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-134-000.

    Applicants: Boulder Solar III, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Boulder Solar III, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-135-000.

    Applicants: 64KT 8me LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of 64KT 8me LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: EC18-136-000.

    Applicants: JERA Power Compass, LLC, Dighton Power, LLC, Marco DM Holdings, L.L.C., Marcus Hook Energy, L.P., Marcus Hook 50, L.P., Milford Power, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of JERA Power Compass, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2194-000.

    Applicants: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 9/7/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180810-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2195-000.

    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCPSA Interconnection Agreement to be effective 8/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180810-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2196-000.

    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Potomac Edison submits a Construction Agreement, Service Agreement No. 4799 to be effective 10/10/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180810-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2197-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Clean-up to OATT, Schedule 12—Appendix A (PSEG) to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180810-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2198-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-08-10_SA 3146 Minnesota Power-GRE (Knife Falls) T-L Interconnection Agrmt to be effective 9/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 8/10/18.

    Accession Number: 20180810-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/31/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-55-000.

    Applicants: Citizens Sycamore-Penasquitos Transmission LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Citizens Sycamore-Penasquitos Transmission LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/9/18.

    Accession Number: 20180809-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/18.

    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: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17651 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER18-2194-000] Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Fox Creek Farm Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 30, 2018.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17654 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP18-534-000] Notice of Application: Northern Natural Gas Company

    Take notice that on July 27, 2018, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed in Docket No. CP18-534-000 an application pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, requesting authorization to: (1) Construct and operate certain compressor, pipeline and town border station facilities; (2) upgrade the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) on a segment of an existing branch line and relocate a MAOP regulator; and (3) abandon short segments of pipeline to accommodate tie-ins, all located in various counties in Minnesota (Northern Lights 2019 Expansion Project and Rochester Project). Combined, the projects will increase peak-day service by 138,504 dekatherms per day (Dth/d). Northern Natural is also requesting approval for rolled-in rate treatment for the projects, 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 concerning this application may be directed to Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates and External Affairs, Northern Natural Gas Company, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, or by calling (402) 398-7103.

    Specifically, Northern Natural proposes the following facilities as part of the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion: (1) 10.0-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Hennepin and Wright Counties; (2) 4.3-mile-long, 8-inch-diameter extension of the existing Alexandria branch line loop in Morrison County; (3) 1.6-mile-long, 6-inch-diameter loop of the existing New Prague branch line in Le Sueur County; (4) 3.1-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter extension of the existing Willmar C-line in Carver County; (5) new 11,153 horsepower (HP) Carver compressor station (CS) in Carver County; (6) one additional 15,900 HP compressor unit at Faribault CS in Rice County; and (7) one 15,900 HP compressor unit at Owatonna CS in Steele County. The Northern Lights 2019 Expansion project will allow Northern Natural to deliver 101,411 Dth/d of incremental peak day capacity. The estimated cost for the Northern Lights 2019 Expansion project is $158,070,870.

    As part of the Rochester Project, Northern Natural proposes to: (1) Construct and operate a 12.2-mile-long, 16-inch-diameter branch line with a new delivery point at its terminus in Olmsted County; (2) increase the MAOP of an 8-mile-long segment of its 16-inch-diameter La Crosse branch line in Freeborn and Mower Counties; and (3) relocate am existing MAOP control valve assembly from Freeborn County to Mower County. The Rochester Project will generate additional 37,093 Dth/d of incremental peak day service. The estimated cost for the Rochester project is $31,416,479.

    On October 16, 2017, the Commission staff granted Northern Natural's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF18-1-000 to staff activities involved for the above referenced projects. Now, as of the filing of the July 30, 2018 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP18-534-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    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.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit five copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and five copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 31, 2018.

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17652 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1494-438] Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Modification of Procedural Schedule

    Take notice that the schedule for processing the following hydroelectric application has been modified.

    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent to File License Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.

    b. Project No.: 1494-438.

    c. Date Filed: February 1, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA).

    e. Name of Project: Pensacola Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. The project occupies federal land.1

    1 In a filing of April 11, 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs provided documentation that lands held in trust by the BIA for the benefit of one or more federally-recognized Indian tribes occur within the existing Pensacola Project boundary. The total acreage of federal lands within the project boundary is unknown at this time.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's Regulations.

    h. Applicant Contact: Dr. Darrell Townsend, Assistant General Manager, GRDA, 420 Highway 28, Langley, OK 74359-0070; (918) 256-0616 or [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Rachel McNamara at (202) 502-8340 or [email protected]

    j. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's August 10, 2018, letter established August 21, 2018, as the new date for the additional Tribal Consultation meeting. The revised deadline for filing the Revised Proposed Study Plan is now September 24, 2018, and the revised deadline for filing comments on the Revised Proposed Study Plan is now October 24, 2018. As such, the application will be processed according to the following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will be the following business day.

    Milestone Target date File Revised Proposed Study Plan September 24, 2018. File Comments on Revised Proposed Study Plan October 24, 2018. Commission Issues Study Plan Determination November 8, 2018. Notice of Formal Study Dispute (if necessary) November 28, 2018. Commission Issues Study Dispute Determination (if necessary) February 6, 2019. Dated: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17655 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator and Foreign Utility Company Status Docket Nos. East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC EG18-80-000 Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC EG18-81-000 Armadillo Flats Wind Project, LLC EG18-82-000 Heartland Divide Wind Project, LLC EG18-83-000 Antelope Expansion 2, LLC EG18-84-000 Pegasus Wind, LLC EG18-85-000 Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC EG18-86-000 Pratt Wind, LLC EG18-87-000 Stoneray Power Partners, LLC EG18-88-000 Copenhagen Wind Farm, LLC EG18-89-000 Rio Bravo Windpower, LLC EG18-90-000 Minco Wind IV, LLC EG18-91-000 Minco Wind V, LLC EG18-92-000 Lorenzo Wind, LLC EG18-93-000 Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC EG18-94-000 Enbridge Rampion UK Ltd FC18-5-000

    Take notice that during the month of July 2018, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2017).

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17653 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [MB Docket No. 17-179; FCC 18-100] Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. and Tribune Media Company, Applications for Transfer of Control of Tribune Media Company and Certain Subsidiaries, WDCW(TV) AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document commences a hearing to determine whether granting the applications filed by Tribune Media Company (Tribune) and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair) seeking to transfer control of Tribune subsidiaries to Sinclair would be in the public interest. The Commission has designated the applications for hearing after finding that there were substantial and material questions of fact as to whether; Sinclair was a “real party in interest” to the sale of certain broadcast stations; Sinclair engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the Commission; and consummation of the overall transaction would be in the public interest, including whether it would comply with § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules.

    DATES:

    Persons desiring to participate as parties in the hearing shall file a petition for leave to intervene not later than September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    File documents with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy mailed to each party to the proceeding. Each document that is filed in this proceeding must display on the front page the docket number of this hearing, “MB Docket No. 17-179.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Brown, [email protected], Media Bureau, (202) 418-1645.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Hearing Designation Order (Order), MB Docket No. 17-139, FCC 18-100, adopted July 18, 2018, and released July 19, 2018. The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text is also available online at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Summary of the Hearing Designation Order

    1. On June 28, 2017, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair) and Tribune Media Company (Tribune) filed applications seeking to transfer control of Tribune subsidiaries to Sinclair. Sinclair and Tribune have amended their applications several times thereafter, in an attempt to bring the transaction into compliance with the Commission's national television multiple ownership rule, as well as the public interest requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).

    2. Among these applications were three that, rather than transfer broadcast television licenses in Chicago, Dallas, and Houston directly to Sinclair, proposed to transfer these licenses to other entities. According to the proposals, Sinclair would divest WGN-TV, Chicago, Illinois, to WGN TV, LLC, a newly-created entity by Steve Fader, an individual with no broadcast experience, for a purchase price of approximately $60 million. Sinclair would also divest KDAF(TV), Dallas Texas, and KIAH(TV), Houston, Texas, to Cunningham Broadcast Corporation (Cunningham) for a combined purchase price of approximately $60 million. The Commission notes that the proposed transfer applications to Fader and Cunningham were withdrawn on July 18, 2018.

    3. Multiple formal pleadings have been filed opposing this latest divestiture plan. Most opponents challenge the divestitures as “shams” intended to circumvent the local and national television multiple ownership rules and find most egregious the proposed divestitures to Fader and Cunningham. Some parties question whether Sinclair will hold de facto control over WGN TV, LLC. Specifically, they question the reasonableness of the terms of the transaction, including a purchase price of only $60 million, and Sinclair's plans to enter into a Joint Sales Agreement (JSA), Shared Services Agreement (SSA), and Option with WGN TV, LLC at closing. The parties also question Fader's independence from Sinclair given that Fader and David Smith, currently a director and controlling shareholder of Sinclair and formerly its CEO, are business partners outside of the broadcast industry. Specifically, Fader is the CEO of Atlantic Automotive Group (Atlantic), in which David Smith has a controlling interest and serves as a member of its board of directors, and Atlantic is a Sinclair advertiser and tenant. Similarly, some parties argue that the sale of stations in Dallas and Houston to Cunningham are in name only and warrant a hearing. According to the objectors, problematic aspects of the proposed divestitures of the Texas stations include: The intertwined relationship between Sinclair and Cunningham, particularly in light of past Commission findings regarding the nature of the relationship; the recent acquisition of the voting shares of Cunningham by Michael Anderson, a Sinclair associate, for a $400,000 sales price that is far below market value; the fact that the children of Sinclair's controlling shareholders are beneficiaries of trusts controlling the non-voting shares of Cunningham with the parents holding options to buy the voting shares in the future; and Sinclair's apparent guarantee of $53.6 million of Cunningham's debt.

    4. Under section 309(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(d), “[i]f a substantial and material question of fact is presented or if the Commission for any reason is unable to find that grant of the application would be inconsistent [with the public interest, convenience, and necessity],” it must formally designate the application for hearing in accordance with section 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e). Courts have stated that, in reviewing the record, the Commission must designate an application for hearing if “the totality of the evidence arouses a sufficient doubt” as to whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, Serafyn v. FCC, 149 F.3d 1213, 1216 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Citizens for Jazz on WRVR, Inc. v. FCC, 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). Section 310(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 310(d), prohibits the transfer of control of a license, either de jure or de facto, without prior Commission consent.

    5. Commission assignment and transfer applications require disclosure of and certifications from the “real party in interest” purchasing the stations at issue. The phrase “real party-in-interest” is used in connection with pending applications, while “de facto control” is used in connection with a licensed station, In re Brasher, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 15 FCC Rcd 16326 (2000). The pertinent concern is whether someone other than the named applicant or licensee is or would be in control, see Arnold L. Chase, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 1642, 1648 n.5 (1990). As the Commission has explained, “a real party in interest issue, by its very nature, is a basic qualifying issue in which the element of deception is necessarily subsumed,” see In the Matter of Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 26 FCC Rcd 6520, 6534-6535 par. 36 (2011) (citing Fenwick Island Broadcast Corp. & Leonard P. Berger, Decision, 7 FCC Rcd 2978, 2979 (Rev. Bd. 1992) (citation omitted)). The test for determining whether an entity is a real-party-in-interest in an application is whether that entity “has an ownership interest or is or will be in a position to actually or potentially control the operation of the station and/or applicant,” High Sierra Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 96 FCC.2d 423, 435 (Rev. Bd. 1983). In the related context of determining de facto control of an applicant or a licensee, we have traditionally looked beyond legal title and financial interests to determine who holds operational control of the station and/or applicant, see WHDH, Inc., 17 FCC.2d 856, 863 (1969), aff'd sub nom., Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1970). In particular, the Commission examines the policies governing station programming, personnel, and finances. The Commission has long held that a licensee may delegate day-to-day operations without surrendering de facto control, so long as the licensee continues to set the policies governing these three indicia of control, WGPR, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8140, 8142 (1995); Choctaw Broadcasting Corp., 12 FCC Rcd 8534, 8539 (1997); Southwest Texas Broadcasting Council, 85 FCC.2d 713, 715 (1981).

    6. The Commission's rule-based attribution benchmarks, which are set forth in Note 2 to § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.3555, note 2, and related precedent, have a different purpose in that they seek to identify those ownership interests that subject the holders to compliance with the multiple and cross-ownership rules because they confer a degree “of influence or control such that the holders have a realistic potential to affect the programming decisions of licensees or other core operating functions,” Review of The Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS Interests, Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12559, 12560 (1999), subsequent hist. omitted (“1999 Attribution Order”). The national television multiple ownership rule prohibits a single entity from owning television stations that, in the aggregate, reach more than 39 percent of the total television households in the United States, see 47 CFR 73.3555(e)(1), (e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii).

    7. Applying these principles to the transaction at issue, the Commission designates for hearing the applications in Attachment 1 because there exists a substantial and material question of fact as to whether Sinclair was the real party-in-interest to the WGN-TV, KDAF, and KIAH applications and if so, whether Sinclair engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the Commission. Accordingly, based upon the record, the Commission is unable to find that grant of this transaction would be consistent with the public interest. Specifically, in view of the longstanding and intertwined relationships between and among Sinclair, Fader, and Cunningham, along with sales terms that are atypically favorable to the buyers (specifically, purchase price, financing, and contractual agreements), substantial and material questions of fact exist as to whether: (1) Sinclair was the real party in interest to the sale of WGN-TV, KDAF(TV), and KIAH(TV); (2) Sinclair engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the Commission; and (3) whether consummation of the overall transaction would be in the public interest, including whether it would comply with § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.3555.

    8. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to sections 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and section 1.254 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.254, the above-captioned applications are designated for hearing to be held at a time and location specified in a subsequent Order by the Administrative Law Judge, upon the following questions: (a) Whether, in light of the issues presented above, Sinclair was the real party-in-interest to the WGN-TV, KDAF, and KIAH applications, and, if so, whether Sinclair engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the Commission; (b) whether consummation of the overall transaction would violate § 73.3555 of the Commission's rules, the broadcast ownership rules; (c) whether, in light of the evidence adduced on the issues presented, grant of the above-captioned applications would serve the public interest, convenience, and/or necessity, as required by sections 309(a) and 310(d) of the Act; and (d) whether, in light of the evidence adduced on the issues presented, the above-captioned applications should be granted or denied.

    9. It is further ordered, that, pursuant to section 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and § 1.254 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.254, both the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to issues specified above shall be upon Sinclair and Tribune. We are assigning the burdens in this manner because Sinclair and Tribune have the particular knowledge of the specific facts at issue in this proceeding.

    10. It is further ordered, that to avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, Sinclair and Tribune pursuant to §§ 1.221(c) and 1.221(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221(c) and 1.221(e), in person or by their respective attorneys, shall file a written appearance, stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in the Order. Such written appearance shall be filed within 20 days of the mailing of this Order pursuant to Paragraph 17 below. Pursuant to § 1.221(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221(c), if the applicants fail to file an appearance within the specified time period, or have not filed prior to the expiration of that time a petition to dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, such written appearance beyond expiration of said 20 days, the assignment applications will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

    11. It is further ordered, that Dallas (KDAF-TV) Licensee (Cunningham), Houston (KIAH-TV) Licensee (Cunningham), and WGN TV, LLC (Fader) and the following petitioners to deny in Exhibit 1 are made parties to the proceeding pursuant to § 1.221(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221(d). To avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, pursuant to § 1.221(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.122(e), each of these parties, in person or by its attorneys, shall file a written appearance, stating its intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this Order. Such written appearance shall be filed within 20 days of the mailing of this Order pursuant to Paragraph 17 below. If any of these parties fails to file an appearance within the time specified, it shall, unless good cause for such failure is shown, forfeit its hearing rights.

    12. It is further ordered, that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall be made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written appearance.

    13. It is further ordered, that a copy of each document filed in this proceeding subsequent to the date of adoption of this document shall be served on the counsel of record appearing on behalf of the Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the identity of such counsel by calling the Investigations & Hearings Division of the Enforcement Bureau at (202) 418-1420. Such service copy shall be addressed to the named counsel of record, Investigations & Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

    14. It is further ordered, that Sinclair and Tribune, pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 311(a)(2), and Section 73.3594 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.3594, shall give notice of the hearing within the time and in the manner prescribed in such Rules, and shall advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required by § 73.3594(g) of the Rules, 47 CFR 73.3594(g).

    15. It is further ordered, that a copy of this document, or a summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.

    16. It is further ordered, that, within fifteen (15) days of the date that written appearances are due, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue a Scheduling Order that includes a set date for resolution.

    17. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this Order by certified mail/return receipt requested to:

    Dallas (KDAF-TV) Licensee, Inc., Houston (KIAH-TV) Licensee, Inc., 2000 W. 41st Street, Baltimore, MD 21211 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., c/o Miles Mason, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 WGN TV, LLC, 1 Olympic Place, Suite 1200, Towson, MD 21204. Tribune Media Company, c/o Mace Rosenstein, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, One CityCenter, 850 10th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001 American Cable Association Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO, American Cable Association, 875 Greentree Road, Seven Parkway Center, Suite 755, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220, (412) 922-8300 Ross J. Lieberman, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, American Cable Association, 2415 39th Place NW, Washington, DC 20007, (202) 494-5661 DISH Network LLC Pantelis Michalopoulos, Stephanie A. Roy, Christopher Bjornson, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 429-3000 Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Alison Minea, Director and Senior Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Hadass Kogan, Corporate Counsel, DISH Network L.L.C., 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 293-0981 Free Press Dana J. Floberg, Matthew F. Wood, Free Press, 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1110, Washington DC, 20036, 202-265-1490 Competitive Carriers Association Steven K. Berry, President & CEO, Rebecca Murphy Thompson, EVP & General Counsel, Courtney Neville, Policy Counsel, Competitive Carriers Association, 805 15th Street NW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 449-9866 Newsmax Media, Inc., Jonathan D. Schiller, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 575 Lexington Ave, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022, (212) 446-2300, Robert M. Cooper, Richard A. Feinstein, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, 1401 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 237-2727 NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association Stephen Pastorkovich, Vice President, Technology & Business Development, Richard J. Schadelbauer, Manager, Economic Research and Analysis, Jill Canfield, Vice President, Legal & Industry, Assistant General Counsel, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, 121 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22203 Public Knowledge, Common Cause, and United Church of Christ, OC Inc. Yosef Getachew, Phillip Berenbroick, Public Knowledge, 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 861-0020 Todd O'Boyle, Common Cause, 805 15th Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20007, (202) 833-1200 Cheryl A. Leanza, United Church of Christ, OC Inc., 100 Maryland Ave. NE, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20002 Steinman Communications Repp Law Firm, 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006-1631, (202) 656-1619 Attorneys General of the States of Illinois, California, Iowa, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia Susan L. Satter, Public Utilities Policy Counsel, Public Utilities Bureau, Anna P. Crane, Counsel, Public Interest Division, Matthew J. Martin, Counsel, Public Interest Division, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Telephone: (312) 814-3000 Cinemoi, Herndon-Reston Indivisible, International Cinematographers Guild, Latino Victory Project, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—CWA, NTCA, Public Knowledge, RIDE Television Network, and Sports Fan Coalition Michael Fletcher, Chief Executive Officer, RIDE Television Network, 1025 S Jennings Ave., Fort Worth, TX 76104 Charlie Braico, President, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—CWA, 501 3rd Street NW, Washington, DC 20001 Dave Twedell, Business Representative, International Cinematographers Guild, 7755 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046 Jill Canfield, Vice President, Legal & Industry Assistant General Counsel, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22203 Phillip Berenbroick, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge, 1818 N Street NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036 David Goodfriend, Chairman, Sports Fans Coalition, 1300 19th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 Daphna Edwards Ziman, President, Cinemoi, 6380 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 910, Los Angeles, CA 90048 Howard M. Weiss, Member, Herndon-Reston Indivisible, 3061 Mt. Vernon Ave., #N405, Alexandria, VA 22305 Jason Rieger, Director, Indivisible Chicago Alliance, Chicago, IL Communications Workers of America, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—CWA, the NewsGuild—CWA Brian Thorn, Debbie Goldman, 501 Third Street NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 434-1131 (phone), (202) 434-1201 (fax) National Hispanic Media Coalition, Common Cause, and United Church of Christ, OC Inc. Carmen Scurato, Esq., Francella Ochillo, Esq., National Hispanic Media Coalition, 65 South Grand Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91105, (626) 792-6462 Yosef Getachew, Common Cause, 805 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 833-1200 Cheryl A. Leanza, United Church of Christ, OC Inc., 100 Maryland Ave. NE, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20002 Federal Communications Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary. Attachment 1 Call sign Community of license FAC ID File No. KDAF Dallas, TX 22201 BTCCDT-20170626AGH KIAH Houston, TX 23394 BTCCDT-20170626AGL KPLR-TV St. Louis, MO 35417 BTCCDT-20170626AGO KRCW-TV Salem, OR 10192 BTCCDT-20170626AFZ KRCW-LP Portland, OR 35151 BTCCDT-20170626AGA K20ES Pendleton, Etc., OR 12671 BTCCDT-20170626AGB K24DX Pendleton, Etc., OR 12678 BTCCDT-20170626AGC KSTU Salt Lake City, UT 22215 BTCCDT-20170626AFH KKRP-LD St. George, UT 70979 BTCCDT-20170626AFI K14PA-D Rural Juab County, UT 22202 BTCCDT-20170626AFP K15FQ-D Milford, Etc., UT 22214 BTCCDT-20170626AFO K17HM-D Wendover, UT 22217 BTCCDT-20170626AFN K22DE Tooele, UT 69280 BTCCDT-20170626AFM K25HF-D Heber City, UT 22212 BTCCDT-20170626AFL K35OP-D Park City, UT 22213 BTCCDT-20170626AFK K43CC-D Santa Clara, UT 22205 BTCCDT-20170626AFJ KSWB-TV San Diego, CA 58827 BTCCDT-20170626AFT KTLA Los Angeles, CA 35670 BTCCDT-20170626AFY KTVI St Louis, MO 35693 BTCCDT-20170626AGF KTXL Sacramento, CA 10205 BTCCDT-20170626AGP KWGN-TV Denver, CO 35883 BTCCDT-20170626AGI KDVR Denver, CO 126 BTCCDT-20170626AGN KFCT Fort Collins, CO 125 BTCCDT-20170626AGM KFSM-TV Fort Smith, AR 66469 BTCCDT-20170626ADY KXNW Eureka Springs, AR 81593 BTCCDT-20170626ADZ WCCT-TV Waterbury, CT 14050 BTCCDT-20170626AFR WTIC-TV Hartford, CT 147 BTCCDT-20170626AFR WTTK Kokomo, IN 56526 BTCCDT-20170626AFU WTTV Bloomington, IN 56523 BTCCDT-20170626AFV WXIN Indianapolis, IN 146 BTCCDT-20170626AFW KAUT-TV OKC, OK 50182 BTCCDT-20170626AEM K15HL-D Cherokee, etc., OK 167263 BTCCDT-20170626AFF K16DX-D Gage, OK 59851 BTCCDT-20170626AFE K17ID-D Cherokee, etc., OK 167261 BTCCDT-20170626AFD K19GZ-D Seiling, OK 167252 BTCCDT-20170626AFC K20BR-D Gage, etc., OK 59840 BTCCDT-20170626AFB K20JD-D Cherokee, etc. OK 167259 BTCCDT-20170626AFA K22BR-D May, Et., OK 59849 BTCCDT-20170626AEZ K22ID-D Cherokee, Etc, OK 167257 BTCCDT-20170626AEY K25JQ-D May, Etc., OK 167251 BTCCDT-20170626AEX K26IS-D Woodward, Etc., OK 167265 BTCCDT-20170626AEW K28JX-D Alva—Cherokee, OK 167255 BTCCDT-20170626AEV K29HZ-D Woodward, Etc., OK 167264 BTCCDT-20170626AEU K31JQ-D Woodward, Etc., OK 167262 BTCCDT-20170626AET K33JM-D Mooreland, Etc., OK 167260 BTCCDT-20170626AES K38KH-D Woodward, Etc., OK 167258 BTCCDT-20170626AER K41KS-D Seiling, OK 167256 BTCCDT-20170626AEQ K43KU-D Seiling, OK 167254 BTCCDT-20170626AEP K47LB-D Seiling, OK 167253 BTCCDT-20170626AEO K49DO-D Seiling, OK 59848 BTCCDT-20170626AEN KFOR-TV OKC, OK 66222 BTCCDT-20170626AEL KCPQ Tacoma, WA 33894 BTCCDT-20170626AGQ KZJO Seattle, WA 69571 BTCCDT-20170626AGR K07ZC-D Ellensburg, etc., WA 33896 BTCCDT-20170626AGS K25CG-D Aberdeen, WA 33898 BTCCDT-20170626AGT K25CH-D North Bend, WA 69575 BTCCDT-20170626AGU K28KJ-D Chelan, WA 33899 BTCCDT-20170626AGV K29ED-D Everett, WA 69574 BTCCDT-20170626AGW K42CM-D Centralia, etc., WA 33895 BTCCDT-20170626AGX WGNO New Orleans, LA 72119 BTCCDT-20170626AEF WNOL-TV New Orleans, LA 54280 BTCCDT-20170626AEE WDAF-TV Kansas City, MO 11291 BTCCDT-20170626AFQ WDCW Washington, DC 30576 BTCCDT-20170626AGJ WGHP High Point, NC 72106 BTCCDT-20170626AEG WGN(AM) Chicago, IL 72114 BTCCDT-20170626AGD WGN-TV Chicago, IL 72115 BTCCDT-20170626AGE WHNT-TV Huntsville, AL 48693 BTCCDT-20170626AEA WHO-DT Des Moines, IA 66221 BTCCDT-20170626AEB WITI Milwaukee, WI 73107 BTCCDT-20170626AFG WJW Cleveland, OH 73150 BTCCDT-20170626AGK WPHL-TV Philadelphia, PA 73879 BTCCDT-20170626AGG WPIX New York, NY 73881 BTCCDT-20170626AFX WPMT York, PA 10213 BTCCDT-20170626AEK WQAD-TV Moline, IL 73319 BTCCDT-20170626ADX WREG-TV Memphis, TN 66174 BTCCDT-20170626AED WSFL-TV Miami, FL 10203 BTCCDT-20170626AGY WTVR-TV Richmond, VA 57832 BTCCDT-20170626AEC WXMI Grand Rapids, MI 68433 BTCCDT-20170626AEH W17DF-D Muskegon, MI 64442 BTCCDT-20170626AEJ W42CB-D Hesperia, MI 64440 BTCCDT-20170626AEI
    [FR Doc. 2018-17095 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewal; Comment Request (OMB No. 3064-0072) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its ongoing obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collection described below (OMB No. 3064-0072).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    Agency Website: https://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Jennifer Jones (202-898-6768), Counsel, MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Jones, Counsel, 202-898-6768, [email protected], MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Acquisition Services Information Requirements.

    OMB Number: 3064-0072.

    Form Number: 3700/55 (Solicitation/Award); 1600/04 (Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractor Personnel and Subcontractors); 1600/07 (Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractors); 3700/12 (Integrity and Fitness Representations and Certifications); 3700/44 (Leasing Representations and Certifications); 3700/57 (Past Performance Questionnaire); 3700/04A (Contractor Representations and Certifications); and 3700/59 (Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women).

    Affected Public: Vendors of goods and services.

    Burden Estimate:

    Summary of Annual Burden Type of
  • burden
  • Obligation to
  • respond
  • Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • frequency of
  • responses
  • Estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Total
  • annual
  • estimated
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • Request for Proposal and Price Quotation (includes Basic Safeguards)—Solicitation/Award (Form 3700/55) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 656 1 6.55 On Occasion 4,297 Request for Information Reporting Voluntary 44 1 37.63 On Occasion 1,656 Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractor Personnel and Subcontractors (Form 1600/04) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 2,400 1 0.33 On Occasion 792 Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractors (Form 1600/07) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 200 1 0.5 On Occasion 100 Integrity and Fitness Representations and Certifications (Form 3700/12) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 12 1 0.33 On Occasion 4 Leasing Representations and Certifications (Form 3700/44) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 15 1 1 On Occasion 15 Past Performance Questionnaire (Form 3700/57) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 984 1 0.75 On Occasion 738 Contractor Representations and Certifications (Form 3700/04A) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 12 1 0.33 On Occasion 4 Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women (Form 3700/59) Reporting Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits 100 1 2 On Occasion 200 Total Hourly Burden 7,806

    General Description of Collection: This is a collection of information involving submission of information and various forms by contractors who desire to do business with the FDIC in connection with contract proposals submitted in response to FDIC solicitations.

    In order to obtain competitive proposals and contracts from vendors interested in providing goods or services to the FDIC, the FDIC uses the Solicitation/Award request (Form 3700/55). This form is used in connection with a request for proposal and a request for price quotations.

    In anticipation of a particular contract solicitation, the FDIC may first conduct market research to narrow down the list of potential contractors. This is done through a request for information (RFI). Following the RFI process, potential firms may be notified if they are to be included in the next phase of the acquisition process.

    The FDIC Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractor Personnel and Subcontractors (Form 1600/04), Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractors (Form1600/07), Integrity and Fitness Representations and Certifications (Form 3700/12), and Leasing Representations and Certifications (Form 3700/44) are a result of the implementation of 12 CFR part 366. The FDIC adopted 12 CFR part 366 pursuant to Section 12(f)(3) and (4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1822(f)(3) and (4), and the rulemaking authority of the FDIC found at 12 U.S.C. 1819. Pursuant to those sections and consistent with the goals and purposes of titles 18 and 41 of the U.S. Code, the rule establishes the minimum standards of integrity and fitness that contractors, subcontractors, and employees of contractors and subcontractors must meet if they perform any service or function on behalf of the FDIC. This rule includes regulations governing conflicts of interest, ethical responsibility, and use of confidential information in accordance with 1822(f)(3); and the prohibitions and the submission of information in accordance with 1822(f)(4). This rule applies to a person who submits an offer to perform or performs, directly or indirectly, a contractual service or function on behalf of the FDIC.

    In addition, the evaluation of an offeror's past performance under formal contracting procedures is a mandatory technical evaluation criterion in the FDIC's standard solicitation document. In support of the evaluation of the past performance criterion, the FDIC Past Performance Questionnaire (Form 3700/57) was developed to be submitted by other government agencies or commercial businesses who are doing business, or have done business, with the contractor that the FDIC is evaluating.

    The FDIC Contractor Representations and Certifications form (Form 3700/4A) must be completed by any offeror that responds to a solicitation for an award over $100,000.

    Finally, in connection with a contract proposal, the FDIC seeks a commitment from an FDIC contractor to ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce and the workforces of its applicable subcontractors. The commitment is asserted by the FDIC Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women form (Form 3700/59), which is a contract clause implementing Section 342(c)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5452). The clause asserts the FDIC's right to request documentation from the contractor that demonstrates the contractor's good faith effort to include minorities and women in its workforce and subcontractors' workforces.

    The annual burden for this information collection is estimated to be 7,806 hours. This represents an increase of 5,472 hours from the current burden estimate of 2,334 hours. This increase is not due to any new requirements imposed by the FDIC. Rather, it is due to FDIC's reassessment of the burden hours associated with the contracting process and to better account for the burdens associated with requests for proposals and price quotations as well as RFIs.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on August 13, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17647 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the Report of Selected Money Market Rates (FR 2420; OMB No. 7100-0357). The revisions are applicable as of October 1, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report:

    Report title: Report of Selected Money Market Rates.

    Agency form number: FR 2420.

    OMB control number: 7100-0357.

    Effective Date: October 1, 2018.

    Frequency: Daily.

    Respondents: Commercial banks, savings associations, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, International Banking Facilities, and significant banking organizations representing entities actively participating in the federal funds and/or other money markets.

    Estimated number of respondents: 99 commercial banks and savings associations, 84 U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, 82 International Banking Facilities, and 1 significant banking organization.

    Estimated average hours per response: 1.8 commercial banks and savings associations, 1.8 U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, 1.0 International Banking Facilities, and 1.8 significant banking organization.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 44,550 commercial banks and savings associations, 37,800 U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, 20,500 International Banking Facilities, and 450 significant banking organization.

    General description of report: The FR 2420 is a transaction-based report that collects daily liability data on federal funds purchased, selected borrowings from non-exempt entities, Eurodollar transactions, and time deposits and certificates of deposits (CDs) from (1) domestically chartered commercial banks and savings associations that have $18 billion or more in total assets as well as those that have total assets above $5 billion but less than $18 billion and meet the activity threshold, (2) U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks with total third-party assets of $2.5 billion or more, and (3) significant banking organizations that are active participants in money markets.1 The FR 2420 also collects daily data on Eurodollar transactions from International Banking Facilities (IBFs) of the above-referenced institutions. The FR 2420 data are used in the publication of the effective federal funds rate (EFFR) and overnight bank funding rate (OBFR) and in analysis of current money market conditions.

    1 A selected borrowing from a non-exempt entity is an unsecured borrowing (an unsecured primary obligation undertaken by the reporting institution as a means of obtaining funds) in U.S. dollars from a counterparty that is a non-exempt entity as derived from Regulation D, Section 204.2(a)(vii).

    Legal authorization and confidentiality: The FR 2420 is authorized by section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act, which authorizes the Board to require depository institutions to make such reports of their liabilities and assets as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable the Board to discharge its responsibility to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2)). The FR 2420 is also authorized pursuant to section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act (IBA), which provides that Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks are subject to section 11(a) of the Federal Reserve Act as if they were a state member bank (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2)). Section 7(c)(2) of the IBA also provides that state-licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks are subject to the requirement in section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act that they file reports of condition with the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank (12 U.S.C. 324). The obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of FR 2420 is mandatory.

    The individual financial institution information provided by each respondent would not be otherwise available to the public. The proposed revisions, as well as information currently collected, would be accorded confidential treatment under the authority of exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Exemption 4 protects from disclosure trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information.

    Current actions: On May 18, 2018, the Board published a notice in the Federal Register (83 FR 23276) requesting public comment for 60 days on the extension, with revision, of the FR 2420. The Board proposes to revise the FR 2420 by adding Selected Deposits (Part D) and removing Selected Borrowings from Non-Exempt Entities (Part AA). Other minor edits in the reporting instructions are proposed to improve clarity. The first report for the proposed revisions to FR 2420 would be as of October 1, 2018. The comment period for this notice expired on July 17, 2018. The Board received one comment from a government entity supporting the continued collection of data on the FR 2420. The revisions will be implemented as proposed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 13, 2018. Ann Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17670 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2970] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Surveys and Interviews With Investigational New Drug Sponsors To Assess Current Communication Practices With Food and Drug Administration Review Staff Under the Sixth Authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on a proposed information collection involving surveys and interviews of sponsors of commercial investigational new drugs (INDs) to obtain feedback about communication practices with FDA review staff.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before October 15, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of October 15, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    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-N-2970 for “Surveys and Interviews with Investigational New Drug (IND) Sponsors to Assess Current Communication Practices with FDA Review Staff under the Sixth Authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VI).” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-7726, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Surveys and Interviews With Investigational New Drug (IND) Sponsors To Assess Current Communication Practices With FDA Review Staff Under the Sixth Authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VI) OMB Control Number 0910—NEW

    In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, FDA published guidance on communications between FDA review staff and drug sponsors during the IND phase of drug development. As part PDUFA VI, FDA committed to a third-party assessment of current IND-phase communication practices, which should reflect this guidance. The contractor for the assessment of IND communication practices is Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

    Therefore, in accordance with the PDUFA VI Commitment Letter, FDA proposes to have ERG conduct surveys and interviews with sponsors of up to 150 active commercial INDs as follows:

    • For each formal meeting between FDA review staff and active commercial IND sponsors during the assessment period, send a survey to the sponsor to solicit specific feedback about communication practices employed for that meeting. For the purpose of this assessment, formal meetings are Type A, B, B (End of Phase), and C meetings during the IND phase of drug development.

    • For each active commercial IND in the assessment, conduct an interview with the sponsor to obtain broader feedback about all communications with FDA review staff during the study period, including telephone and email interactions in addition to meetings.

    The purpose of this information collection is to understand active commercial IND sponsor perspectives on communication during drug development with a focus on what is working well, ongoing challenges and pain points, lessons learned, and opportunities for improvement. The contractor will develop anonymized aggregated summaries of survey and interview responses, analyze this information to identify common themes, consider these results along with IND data and feedback from FDA review staff to develop a set of findings and recommendations, and prepare a report to be published on FDA's website. The contractor will keep information collected private; ERG will not disclose personally identifying information to FDA or any other party.

    The number of commercial INDs with activity is approximately 4,000 per year. ERG will interview 1 to 3 sponsor representatives at a time for up to 150 INDs during the annual assessment period.

    Thus, FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden
  • per response
  • Total hours
    IND sponsors: Surveys 150 1 150 0.17 (10 minutes) 25.50 IND sponsors: Interviews 450 1 450 1.5 675 Total 700.50 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA estimates that it will take each IND sponsor a maximum of 10 minutes to complete a survey. Up to 150 respondents will take part in the survey, yielding a maximum burden of 25.5 hours. FDA estimates that it will take each IND sponsor up to 90 minutes to respond to requests for interviews and participate in interviews. Up to 450 respondents will take part in interviews, yielding a maximum burden of 675 hours. FDA's burden estimates are based on experience with information collections for similar types of PDUFA-related assessments.

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17715 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-2945] Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. Members will participate via teleconference.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 3, 2018, from 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be webcast and will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/vrbpac1018. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Serina Hunter-Thomas, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-5771, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On October 3, 2018, the VRBPAC will meet in an open session to discuss and make recommendations on the selection of strains to be included in an influenza virus vaccine for the 2019 southern hemisphere influenza season.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before September 26, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 18, 2018. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 19, 2018.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 13, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17702 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary's National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services (NACRHHS) has scheduled a public meeting. Information about NACRHHS and the agenda for this meeting can be found on the NACRHHS website at https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory-committees/rural-health/index.html.

    DATES:

    September 10, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-5:15 p.m. ET; September 11, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-5:15 p.m. ET; September 12, 2018, 8:30 a.m.-11:15 a.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    On September 10, the address for the meeting is The Duke Endowment, 800 East Morehead Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    On the morning of September 11, NACRHHS will break into subcommittees. One subcommittee will travel to Happy Valley Medical Center, 1345 NC Highway 268, Lenoir, NC 28645. The other subcommittee will travel to Winnsboro Smiles Dental Clinic, 124 N Congress Street, Winnsboro, SC 29180. In the afternoon, at approximately 4:00 p.m. ET., NACRHHS will reconvene at the AC Hotel Charlotte City Center, 220 E Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    On September 12, the address for the meeting is AC Hotel Charlotte City Center, 220 E Trade Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Hirsch, Administrative Coordinator at the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 17W59D, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 301-443-7322; or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACRHHS provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) on policy, program development, and other matters of significance concerning both rural health and rural human services.

    During the September meetings, NACRHHS will discuss the issues of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one of the leading causes of mortality in rural areas, and the provision of oral health services in rural areas. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be honored in the order they are requested and may be limited as time allows. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to NACRHHS should be sent to Steven Hirsch, using the contact information above at least 3 business days prior to the meeting.

    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance or another reasonable accommodation should notify Steven Hirsch at the address and phone number listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

    Amy P. McNulty, Acting Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17623 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Opportunity to Co-Sponsor Office of Research Integrity Workshops AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announces the opportunity for non-federal public and private sector entities to co-sponsor ORI conferences or workshops (ORI Workshops). Potential co-sponsors must have a demonstrated interest and experience in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) or the handling of research misconduct allegations. Potential co-sponsors must be willing to participate substantively in the co-sponsored activity.

    Expressions of interest for co-sponsorships of ORI Workshops are received throughout the year at the email address below. ORI co-sponsors a limited number of workshops with other entities each year. Expressions of interest are being received for ORI Workshops that will take place in the next fiscal year (October 2018 through September 2019) or beyond.

    Expressions of interest for co-sponsorships should be sent by email to [email protected] with “Co-sponsorship for ORI Workshops” in the subject field or by mail to ORI at 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tracey Randolph, Program Analyst, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ORI oversees and directs U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) research integrity activities on behalf of the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with the exception of the regulatory research integrity activities of the Food and Drug Administration. ORI is a program office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ORI's Division of Education and Integrity (DEI) has among its duties the responsibility to develop and implement activities and programs to teach RCR and train Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) as well as others that are involved in research integrity, such as Institutional Officials (IOs) and institutional counsel.

    Consistent with ORI's mission and the applicable statutory authority, 42 U.S.C. 289b, ORI Workshops aim to provide clarification and technical information on the HHS regulations for handling research misconduct allegations and on education in RCR to foster integrity in research. ORI Workshops are moderately sized, convening over one to three days, and typically accepting between 20 and 50 attendees.

    Co-sponsors will assist with workshop and agenda development, coordination, financial management, and meeting logistics in conjunction with ORI staff.

    Co-sponsors can charge registration fees to recover costs associated with the events; however, co-sponsors may not set registration fees at an amount higher than necessary to recover related event expenses. Further, co-sponsors are solely responsible for collecting and handling any registration fees collected.

    Eligibility for Co-Sponsorship: The co-sponsoring entity must have a demonstrated interest and experience in the RCR or the handling of research misconduct allegations. The co-sponsoring entity must participate substantively in the co-sponsored activity, not just provide funding or logistical support.

    Each co-sponsorship expression of interest shall describe: (1) The entity's interest and goals in promoting research integrity or the RCR, (2) the entity's prior experience and current readiness to undertake the responsibilities described above, (3) the type of event(s) that the entity is interested in co-sponsoring with ORI, (4) facilities available for the event(s), and (5) any current constraints with respect to dates or facilities. The type of event may be an event from ORI's regular program of recurring events (e.g., RCR Instructor's Workshop) or a special topic of mutual interest to be developed jointly. The expression of interest should be a bulleted outline, no more than two pages in length, single-spaced, and 11-point font. An entity may submit an expression of interest individually or jointly with other entities describing their relative contributions.

    Evaluation Criteria: After engaging in exploratory discussions with potential co-sponsors that respond to this notice, the following considerations will be used by HHS officials, as appropriate and relevant, to select the co-sponsor(s):

    • Qualifications and capability to fulfill co-sponsorship responsibilities • suitability of the location of the proposed event in terms of the overall geographical distribution of ORI events • potential for reaching, generating, and engaging adequate number of attendees from stakeholders • availability and description of facilities needed to support the workshop • availability of administrative support for the logistics of hosting such workshops

    The selected co-sponsoring organization(s) shall furnish the necessary personnel, materials, services, and facilities to administer its responsibility for the workshop. These duties will be outlined in a co-sponsorship agreement with ORI that will set forth the details of the co-sponsored activity, including the requirements that any fees collected by the co-sponsor shall be limited to the amount necessary to cover the co-sponsor's related event expenses. This co-sponsorship agreement does not represent an endorsement by ORI of an individual co-sponsor's policies, positions, or activities. Additionally, this agreement will not affect any determination concerning activities by the co-sponsors that are regulated by ORI.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. Scott J. Moore, Deputy Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17615 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability (ACBTSA) will hold a meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Thursday, September 13, 2018, from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Berger, Designated Federal Officer for the ACBTSA, Senior Advisor for Blood and Tissue Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street SW, Suite L100, Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 795-7697; Fax: (202) 691-2102; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The ACBTSA provides advice to the Secretary through the Assistant Secretary for Health. The Committee advises on a range of policy issues to include: (1) Identification of public health issues through surveillance of blood and tissue safety issues with national biovigilance data tools; (2) identification of public health issues that affect availability of blood, blood products, and tissues; (3) broad public health, ethical, and legal issues related to the safety of blood, blood products, and tissues; (4) the impact of various economic factors (e.g., product cost and supply) on safety and availability of blood, blood products, and tissues; (5) risk communications related to blood transfusion and tissue transplantation; and (6) identification of infectious disease transmission issues for blood, organs, blood stem cells and tissues. The Committee has met regularly since its establishment in 1997. The Committee will meet on September 13, 2018 to receive presentations on material pertinent to exploring the topic of “Defining a tolerable risk for infectious diseases from a patient's perspective.” Historical aspects of combating infectious disease risks in the blood supply, ongoing national and global efforts towards mitigating those risks, and emerging considerations shall be presented to the Committee. The full Committee will receive an interim report from the ACBTSA Blood Sustainability subcommittee and additional topics that are pertinent to the mission of the Committee may be added to the agenda.

    The public will have an opportunity to present their views to the Committee during public comment session scheduled for the meeting. Comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker and must be pertinent to the discussion. Pre-registration is required for participation in the public comment session. Any member of the public who would like to participate in this session is required to submit their name, email, and comment summary prior to close of business on September 7, 2018. If it is not possible to provide 30 copies of the material to be distributed at the meeting, then individuals are requested to provide a minimum of one (1) copy of the document(s) to be distributed prior to the close of business on September 7, 2018. It is also requested that any member of the public who wishes to provide comments to the Committee utilizing electronic data projection submit the necessary material to the Designated Federal Officer prior to the close of business on September 7, 2018.

    Dated: August 9, 2018. James J. Berger, Senior Advisor for Blood and Tissue Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17617 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-41-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The meeting will be open to the public; public comment sessions will be held during the meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 12 and 13, 2018. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC website at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html as soon as they become available.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast on both days of the meeting. For more information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html.

    Pre-registration is required for members of the public who wish to attend the meeting and who wish to participate in a public comment session. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in a public comment session should register at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html. Participants may also register by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-5566 and providing their name, organization, and email address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ann Aikin, Acting Designated Federal Officer, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program. During the September 2018 NVAC meeting, sessions will consist of presentations on valuing vaccines, including presentations on the role of vaccines in combatting antibiotic resistance; vaccine innovation, including presentations on financing, new technologies, and development of new vaccines; lessons from the field, with focus on Ebola and the new Shingles vaccine; and a session on HPV vaccination for cancer prevention. Please note that agenda items will be related to the charge of the Committee and are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC website: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend in person and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office ([email protected]) at least five business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: July 31, 2018. Roula K. Sweis, Chief of Management and Operations, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17618 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34).

    Date: September 10, 2018.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Zhuqing (Charlie) Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G41B, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5068, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17676 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council.

    Date: September 13, 2018.

    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: Report to the Director, NIDCR.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Building 35, Room 620/630, 35 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 35, Room 620/630, 35 Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Alicia J. Dombroski, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4805, [email protected]

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/about, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17679 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Analytical Services Center for Medications Development (8938).

    Date: September 25, 2018.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 827-5702, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17674 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; SEP for NIDA Medications Development.

    Date: September 28, 2018.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Ivan K. Navarro, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4242, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-5833, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17677 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.

    Date: September 5, 2018.

    Closed: 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Open: 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: This portion of the meeting will be open to the public for announcements and reports of administrative, legislative, and program developments in the drug abuse field.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Research, Office of the Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 5274, MSC 9591, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-443-6487, s[email protected].

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.drugabuse.gov/NACDA/NACDAHome.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 10, 2018. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17675 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2018-0040] The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of an open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The President's National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) will meet Thursday, September 13, 2018, in Arlington, VA. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The NIAC will meet on Thursday, September 13, 2018, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    1310 N. Courthouse Road, Arlington, VA 22201, Maryland Training Room. Members of the public will register at the registration table prior to entering the meeting room. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible.

    Members of the public are invited to provide comments on issues to be considered by the NIAC mentioned in the supplementary information section. Comments must be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Homeland Security no later than 12:00 p.m. on September 12, 2018, in order to be considered by the Council in its meeting. The comments must be identified by docket number DHS-2018-0040, and may be submitted by any one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting written comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number DHS-2018-0018 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (703) 235-9707, ATTN: Ginger Norris.

    Mail: Ginger Norris, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW, Mail Stop 0612, Washington, DC 20598-0607.

    Instructions: All written submissions must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and docket number DHS-2018-0040. Written comments will be posted without alteration at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or comments received by the NIAC, go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “NIAC” in the search line and the website will list all relevant documents for your review.

    Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide oral comments on the topics on the meeting agenda below, and on any previous studies issued by the NIAC. We request that comments be limited to the issues and studies listed in the meeting agenda and previous NIAC studies. All previous NIAC studies can be located at www.dhs.gov/NIAC. Public comments may be submitted in writing or presented in person for the Council to consider. Written comments for discussion during the NIAC meeting must be received by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 12, 2018. Comments received after the deadline will be added to the subsuquent meeting minutes, if received before meeting minutes are finalized. In-person presentations will be limited to three minutes per speaker, with no more than 15 minutes for all speakers. Parties interested in making in-person comments should register on the Public Comment Registration list available at the entrance to the meeting location prior to the beginning of the meeting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ginger Norris, NIAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 202-441-5885, [email protected] You may also consult the NIAC website, www.dhs.gov/NIAC, or contact the NIAC Secretariat by phone at (703) 235-2888 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. The NIAC shall provide the President, through the Secretary of Homeland Security, with advice on the security and resilience of the Nation's critical infrastructure sectors. The NIAC will meet to discuss issues relevant to critical infrastructure security and resilience, as directed by the President. The Council will discuss future taskings and host a cross-sector panel discussion about various risks facing critical infrastructure. All slide presentations will be posted prior to the meeting on the Council's public web page, www.dhs.gov/NIAC.

    Agenda I. Opening of Meeting II. Roll Call of Members III. Opening Remarks and Introductions IV. Approval of June 2018 Meeting Minutes V. Catastrophic Power Outage Study Update VI. Public Comment VII. Discussion of New NIAC Business VIII. Closing Remarks IX. Adjournment Deirdre Gallop-Anderson, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the National Infrastructure Advisory Council.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17716 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2018-0041] National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis Database AGENCY:

    Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; new collection, 1670—NEW.

    SUMMARY:

    DHS NPPD IP will submit the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2018-0041, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Please include docket number DHS-2018-0041 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP, ATTN: 1670—NEW, 245 Murray Lane SW, Mail Stop 0612, Jenny Margaros, Arlington, VA 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you send an email comment, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. Please note that responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as public comments that may be made available to the public notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jenny Margaros at 703-235-9381 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-19: Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States, DHS was mandated to have a regularly updated assessment of domestic explosives-related capabilities. It required DHS to expand its National Capabilities Analysis Database, which is now known as the National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis Database (NCCAD). Currently, the President's Policy Directive-17: Countering Improvised Explosive Devices (PPD-17) reaffirms the 2007 Strategy for Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States. It provides guidance to update and gives momentum to our ability to counter threats involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

    The NCCAD provides State, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement stakeholders a method to identify their level of capability to prevent, protect, mitigate, and respond to an IED threat. It also provides Federal stakeholders an overarching view of the Nation's collective counter-IED capabilities.

    Information is collected by Office for Bombing Prevention (OBP) personnel and contractors. These individuals travel to locations across the Nation to gather the requisite information. OBP personnel and contractors facilitate initial baseline assessments either face-to-face or via webinar in order to get stakeholders familiar with the NCCAD system, provide clarifying information, and answer questions. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement personnel with a counter-IED mission assist NCCAD personnel to coordinate a training location for personnel from the four disciplines (bomb squads, explosives detection canine, special weapons and tactics teams (SWAT), and dive units) to take their respective assessment. The OBP facilitator begins by conducting a short brief on the reasons for NCCAD and how it can help them as units.

    The NCCAD assessments consists of a total of 56 tasks bundled into specific question sets spread across the four (4) disciplines representing specific tasks encompassing personnel, training, and equipment. The OBP and the NCCAD team used federal requirements (FEMA Resource Typing) to create the overarching list of questions in the question sets. Where there were no requirements, OBP and NCCAD worked with subject matter experts to identify best practices to create the assessments. Subject matter experts and Federal, State, local agency representatives collaborated to rank and stack each question and question set in order of importance and priority. At that time, weights were assigned to the questions, which provide the capability calculation for the whole question set.

    The first group of questions in the assessment focus on the profile of the unit, i.e., the number of technicians/handlers; primary assignment versus collateral duty assignment; number of IED responses in the past twelve (12) months; number of special events in the past twelve (12) months. The rest of question sets are delineated by task: Implement Intelligence/Information Gathering and Dissemination; Implement Bombing Incident Prevention and Response Plans; Incident Analysis; Incident Mitigation; Access Threat Area; Contain or Mitigate Hazards; Conduct Scene Investigations; and Maintain Readiness.

    Each discipline's questionnaire only includes question sets specific to that discipline. This means that while multiple disciplines may have the same question set title, the questions may not be the same. For example, the SWAT and canine questionnaires both have the question set, Maintain Readiness, however, only the canine questionnaire includes specific questions about leashes, water bowls, and kennels, as equipment needed to maintain readiness. This tailoring allows for a large question pool, while ensuring specificity depending on the discipline being assessed.

    The information from each individual unit is collected into the database. Upon completion of inputting the unit information, the program, using the appropriate algorithms, creates a capabilities analysis report for the unit commander. The report identifies current capabilities, existing gaps, and makes recommendations for closing those gaps. Additionally, the NCCAD allows the unit commander to identify the most efficient and effective purchases of resources to close those gaps. At the State, regional, and National-levels, the data is aggregated within the selected discipline and provides a snapshot of the counter-IED capabilities across the discipline. OBP also intends to identify the lowest, highest, median, and average capability levels across units, States, regions, disciplines, and the Nation. This data will be used to provide snapshots of the C-IED capabilities and gaps to inform decision-makers on policy decisions, resource allocation for capability enhancement, and crisis management. Data collected will be used in readiness planning, as well as steady-state and crisis decision support during threats or incidents. NCCAD data will assist operational decision-makers and resource providers in developing investment justifications that support State homeland security strategies and national priorities.

    The National Incident Management System (NIMS) Resource Typing assessment is a subset of the NCCAD assessment questions which identify the number and type of bomb response teams that a unit has based on its composition. There are seven tasks with a total of 32 questions. Resource Typing Definitions are used to categorize, by capability, the resources requested, deployed, and used in incidents. Measurable standards identifying resource capabilities and performance levels serve as the basis for this categorization. National NIMS resource types support a common language for the mobilization of resources (equipment, teams, units, and personnel) prior to, during, and after major incidents. Resource users at all levels use these definitions as a consistent basis when identifying and inventorying their resources for capability estimation, planning and for mobilization during mutual aid efforts. National NIMS resource types represent the minimum criteria for the associated component and capability.

    All responses are collected via electronic means via the virtual assessment program. While the actual data collection is done through the NCCAD database through IP Gateway, OBP personnel facilitate the collection of the data by assisting users via a face-to-face discussion or webinar. This is particularly useful for first time users to understand the nuances of the NCCAD system and how they can use their assessment to help justify resource requests and help with steady-state and threat-initiated decision-making. It is NCCAD policy to not accept the questionnaires in paper format. If there is a power outage at the event site or if the website is down due to technical reasons, facilitators have copies of the paper format for stakeholders to continue filling out. Facilitators do not collect these hard copies. Stakeholders keep them to update the electronic assessment when they next access it. OBP is cutting down this possibility even more by beginning the utilization of tablets and hotspots for those individuals who do not have laptops or internet access.

    This is a new information collection.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Title of Collection: National Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Capabilities Analysis Database.

    OMB Control Number: 1670—NEW.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Affected Public: State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 2,717.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.

    Total Burden Hours: 3,735 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $0.

    David Epperson, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17717 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-7005-N-14] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Owner's Certification With HUD Tenant Eligibility and Rent Procedures AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lanier M. Hylton, Housing Program Manager, Office of Program Systems Management, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 402-2510, (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Owner Certification with HUD's Tenant Eligibility and Rent Procedures.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0204.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired. (OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2018.)

    Form Number: HUD-50059, HUD-50059-A, HUD-9887/9887-A, HUD-27061-H, HUD-90100, HUD-90101, HUD-90102, HUD-90103, HUD-90104, HUD-90105-a, HUD-90105-b, HUD-90105-c, HUD-90105-d, HUD-90106, HUD-91066, HUD-91067, HUD-90011, HUD-90012, Resident Rights and Responsibilities Brochure, EIV and You, and the HUD Fact Sheet For HUD Assisted Residents

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The Department needs to collect this information in order to establish an applicant's eligibility for admittance to subsidized housing, specify which eligible applicants may be given priority over others, and prohibit racial discrimination in conjunction with selection of tenants and unit assignments. The Department must specify tenant eligibility requirements as well as how tenants' incomes, rents and assistance must be verified and computed so as to prevent the Department from making improper payments to owners on behalf of assisted tenants. The Department also must provide annual reports to Congress and the public on the race/ethnicity and gender composition of subsidy program beneficiaries. This information is essential to maintain a standard of fair practices in assigning tenants to HUD Multifamily properties.

    Respondents (i.e., affected public): Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,170,713.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 4,127,179.

    Frequency of Response: 1.

    Average Hours per Response: 2.58.

    Total Estimated Burden: 1,536,684.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: July 25, 2018. Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner, H.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17672 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-7005-N-13] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Financial Management Template AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Harry Messner, Housing Program Manager, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2626. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Multifamily Financial Management Template.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0551.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of previously approved collection expiring. (OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2018).

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: Owners of certain HUD-insured and HUD-assisted properties are required to submit annual financial statements to HUD via the internet in the HUD-prescribed format and chart of accounts, and in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Most owners of multifamily housing (MFH) properties are required to submit annual financial statements to HUD. In accordance with the Department's Uniform Financial Reporting Standards (UFRS) regulation, 24 CFR part 5, owners of certain HUD-insured and HUD-assisted properties are required to submit annual financial statements electronically to HUD via the internet in the HUD-prescribed format and chart of accounts, and in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Department uses this information to monitor the owner's compliance with regulatory requirements and to assess fiscal performance.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 26,995.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 26,995.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Average Hours per Response: 14.

    Total Estimated Burden: 377,930.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: July 25, 2018. Vance T. Morris, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner, H.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17673 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2017-N155; FXES11140300000-189-FF03E00000] Habitat Conservation Plan for the Interior Least Tern and Application To Renew Incidental Take Permit; Gibson County, Indiana AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of permit application; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an application to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submitting Comments: Send written comments by U.S. Mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Phil Delphey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or via email to [email protected] Specify that your comments pertain to TE016724.

    Obtaining Documents: For information on obtaining documents for review, see Public Comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Phil Delphey, 612-713-5318.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    Section 9 of the ESA and our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take, i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

    We invite public comment on permit renewal application TE016724, for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to either address shown in ADDRESSES.

    Background

    In 1986, a single pair of endangered Interior least terns (Sterna antillarum) nested at Cinergy Corporation's (Cinergy) Gibson Generating Station in Gibson County, Indiana. Since that time, the least tern colony at the facility has grown. During the 1990s, Cinergy worked cooperatively with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Service to maintain favorable conditions for successful tern production at the Gibson Generating Station. Between 1986 and 1999, the largest number of terns recorded in a single year (1998) included an estimated 85 adult terns, 63 nests, and 72 fledged young. In the late 1990s, Cinergy worked cooperatively with the IDNR and the Service to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) regarding continued operation of the facility, and, in late 1999, the Service issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) to Cinergy. In 2005, the ITP was renewed. Management of the facility under the HCP has promoted the continued growth of the tern colony. In 2010, an estimated 150 adults, 110 nests, and 165 fledged young were recorded. In addition to the growth in numbers, the tern colony has expanded to areas beyond the original location along a splitter dike adjacent to a cooling pond. Nesting has now been documented on the splitter dike, adjacent to ash ponds, a coal combustion waste landfill, construction areas, and station access roads. The expansion of the tern nesting area presents management challenges for the generating station and associated facilities.

    Applicant's Proposal

    Duke Power Company purchased and merged with Cinergy Corp. to form Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) in 2006. Duke has continued to operate the facility in accordance with the HCP and the ITP. Duke has applied to the Service for renewal of its ITP number TE016724. An HCP accompanies this renewal application. The HCP describes management activities in and around the Gibson Generating Station, including water management, predator control, and minimization of human disturbance due to recreational use.

    Proactive management over the past 25 years has resulted in an increase in the Interior least tern population nesting at Gibson Generating Station and surrounding areas. However, no incidental take of least terns has occurred during that time. Actions that may result in take include human disturbance during management and operations, including foot traffic, vehicle or construction equipment, ash placement, waste disposal, and harassment due to the presence of people and equipment.

    Duke proposes to continue to manage its property to protect least terns. In addition, Duke has committed to monitor the result of its activities and the effect on the population of least terns at Gibson Generating Station and the surrounding state and Federal lands.

    Public Comments

    We seek public review and comments on this permit application. Please refer to permit number TE016724 when you submit comments. The Habitat Conservation Plan, Incidental Take Permit renewal application, and NEPA determination are available for public inspection on the Midwest Region website at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/r3hcps.html. In addition, the documents are available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office, 5600 American Blvd., West, 10th Floor, Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-1458, (612-713-5194) and at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47403 (812-334-4261).

    Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305).

    Dated: May 29, 2018. Sean O. Marsan, Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17664 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2018-N025; FXES11140800000-189-FF08EVEN00] Receipt of Application Incidental Take Permit; Draft Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Morro Shoulderband Snail; Phillips Single-Family Residence, Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Richard Phillips for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit would authorize take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail that would occur incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated uses addressed in the draft low-effect habitat conservation plan prepared for the project. We invite public comment.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain documents: You may download a copy of the draft habitat conservation plan and draft low-effect screening form and environmental action statement at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or you may request copies of the documents by sending U.S. mail to our Ventura office, or by phone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    To submit written comments: Please send us your written comments using one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail: Send your comments to: Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003.

    Facsimile: Fax your comments to 805-644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie M. Vanderwier, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 805-677-3400 (phone), or at the Ventura address in ADDRESSES.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have received an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The application addresses take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) that would occur incidental to the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated uses. The requested permit term is 10 years and the permit would be subject to renewal. Issuance of an ITP pursuant to this habitat conservation plan (HCP) has been determined to be eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We invite comments from the public on the draft HCP, draft low-effect screening form, and environmental action statement.

    Background

    The Morro shoulderband snail was listed as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize take of listed species if it is incidental to other lawful activities and not the purpose of carrying out that activity. The Code of Federal Regulations provides regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Issuance of an ITP must not jeopardize the existence of any federally listed fish, wildlife or plant species. Under the ESA, protections for federally listed plants differ from the protections afforded to federally listed animals. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)) for species included in the ITP.

    Applicant's Proposed Activities

    The proposed project involves the construction and maintenance of a single-family residence and associated uses on an existing, legal, one acre parcel in the unincorporated community of Los Osos, County of San Luis Obispo, California. The take would occur in association with site preparation activities necessary for construction. The HCP includes minimization measures for the covered species and compensation for unavoidable take of the species through payment of a fee to an Impact-Directed Environmental Account held by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Collected fees from this account will fund recovery actions for Morro shoulderband snail identified in the 1998 recovery plan for this species and four plant species from western San Luis Obispo County. The HCP supports an application to the Service seeking issuance of an ITP that would authorize take of the Morro shoulderband snail. The County of San Luis Obispo requires demonstration that property owners are in compliance with the ESA regarding Morro shoulderband snail as part of their issuance of County permits that would allow land development in Los Osos.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    The Service has made a preliminary determination that issuance of the ITP is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,) nor that it will, individually or cumulatively, have more than a negligible effect on Morro shoulderband snail, the only species covered in the HCP. Therefore, the permit qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the draft HCP and associated documents, you may submit comments by one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

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

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: August 10, 2018. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17663 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2018-N076; FXES11140100000-189-FF01E00000] Habitat Conservation Plan for the Yelm Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, Washington AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application from Mr. Todd Tveten for an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The ITP would authorize “take” of the Yelm pocket gopher, incidental to otherwise lawful activities during construction of a single-family home and agricultural shop in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a habitat conservation plan (HCP) with measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species. We have also prepared a draft environmental action statement (EAS) for our preliminary determination that the HCP and permit decision may be eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. We provide this notice to open a public comment period and invite comments from all interested parties regarding the documents.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please submit written comments by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods:

    Internet: You may view or download copies of the HCP and obtain additional information on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Tveten HCP” in the subject line of the message.

    U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2018-N076; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington Fish and Wildlife Office; 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102; Lacey, WA 98503.

    In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call 360-753-5823 to make an appointment (necessary for viewing or picking up documents only) during regular business hours at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Romanski, Conservation Planning and Hydropower Branch Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 360-753-5823. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Service received an application for an ITP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The applicant requests a 3-year permit term that would authorize “take” of the threatened Yelm pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama yelmensis), hereafter referred to as Yelm pocket gopher, incidental to construction of one single-family home on land the applicant owns in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a HCP that describes actions the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species.

    Background

    Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531) prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in our regulations as to intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions that authorize the Service to issue permits to non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species caused by otherwise lawful activities, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.

    Proposed Action

    The Service proposes to issue the requested 3-year ITP based on the applicant's commitment to implement the HCP, if permit issuance criteria are met. Covered activities include construction of a single-family home and an agricultural building. The area covered under the HCP consists of an approximately one-half acre project development site and an approximately one acre conservation site on land owned by the applicant. Take of the Yelm pocket gopher would occur within the half-acre development site and will be offset by granting Thurston County a perpetual conservation easement over an acre of occupied habitat, for the purpose of ensuring that it is perpetually managed for the benefit of the covered species. Funding for management of the conservation easement would be assured. The applicant may have the conservation easement released in the future if it purchases credits from a Service-approved conservation bank for the Yelm pocket gopher, which would provide equivalent or greater conservation benefits to the species. At present, no such conservation bank exists.

    Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We specifically request information, views, and suggestions from interested parties regarding our proposed Federal action, including adequacy of the HCP pursuant to the requirements for permits at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17 and adequacy of the EAS pursuant to NEPA.

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA and NEPA and their implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32 and 40 CFR 1506.6, respectively).

    Theresa E. Rabot, Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2018-17668 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2018-N055; FXES11130800000-189-FF08EVEN00] Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan and Categorical Exclusion; Gaver Ranch, Castroville, Monterey County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an application from Midnight Sun, Inc., for a 20-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally threatened California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander that is likely to occur incidental to ongoing agricultural activities, flood and erosion control activities, and habitat restoration at Gaver Ranch near the community of Castroville in unincorporated Monterey County, California. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes a low-effect habitat conservation plan.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by September 17, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may download a copy of the habitat conservation plan, draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, and related documents on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/ventura/, or you may request copies of the documents by U.S. mail to our Ventura office (see address below) or by phone (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Comment submission: Please address written comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. You alternatively may send comments by facsimile to (805) 644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chad Mitcham, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (805) 677-3328.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have received an application from Midnight Sun, Inc., for a 20-year incidental take permit under the Act. The application addresses the potential for “take” of the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) likely to occur incidental to ongoing agricultural activities, flood and erosion control activities, and habitat restoration at Gaver Ranch, 15740 Blackie Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 133-012-001 and 133-012-007), near Castroville in unincorporated Monterey County, California. We invite comments from the public on the application package, which includes a low-effect habitat conservation plan. This proposed action has been determined to be eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended.

    Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) added the California red-legged frog to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (“listed”) as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813), and the Service listed the California tiger salamander in central California as threatened on August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47212). This list is found in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11. Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. The Act defines “incidental take” as take that is not the purpose of carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.

    Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are provided at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Issuance of an incidental take permit and actions undertaken through implementation of the habitat conservation plan (HCP) must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. All species covered by an incidental t